There's no need to apply the state created status to this though. What I'd really like to see is a separation of marriage contracts from the state benefits applied to opposite *** couples who enter into one. The former is something which anyone ought to be able to enter into. The latter only makes sense if the marriage exists between a man and woman.
So you basically want to completely change the current structure of marital unions in order to justify keeping same-*** couples from calling themselves married in the eyes of the government.[/quote]
It wouldn't completely change the structure of marital unions. It wouldn't actually change them at all. It would actually be a relatively minor administrative detail at best. Right now, when you get married, there's a set of criteria to qualify for the license. The law includes a contract that you are assumed to enter into if you sign the license, have it witnessed, filed, etc. All I'm saying is that we move that contract from something you have applied *if* you sign/file the license, to having it be one of the requirements *for* signing/filing the license.
Functionally, there's no difference. You're signing a piece of paper either way. However, conceptually, what this does is make the marriage contract a requirement (potentially one of many) for the state status (and whatever benefits are attached) instead of a consequence of that state status. By doing this you can now allow anyone to enter into the exact same marriage contract. This contract is recognized as a legitimate marriage contract by the state, and other things can be attached to it as desired. Which means that benefits we might want to apply to those in a marriage contract who have the potential to procreate can be hinged on that potential to procreate, while benefits we think should apply to any couple with that contract can apply to anyone. Adoption processes can act on the contract and not the other associated benefits when interacting with the couple. Hospitals can do so as well in terms of who gets to visit, make health decisions, etc.
Basically, this solves all the "problems" *** couples say they want solved and allow them (and anyone) to choose to marry as they wish, while still retaining the purpose of the set of state incentives for marriage as it relates to procreation. Everyone wins.
Yes. Wow. A relatively simple, nearly cosmetic change to our laws could solve the whole **** problem. Isn't that amazing?