Are you unaware or simply in denial that many same-gender couples have families?<quoted text>
While it can be argued that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, I think many simply miss the point that was made. Much of what was in the post to which you reply is factual. It has long been argued that the State was able to garner a compelling interest in the regulation of marriage due to it's ability to create a child. Agree or not those are the facts.
The State got into the marriage business under the guise of providing stability and legal protections to the potential children born from the union. This was also expanded into providing protections to the woman in such a union. Just as in each instance where the government has taken "freedom" from its citizens, it has come under the cloak of "protection."
Now, if we are to say that procreation is not a "requirement" of marriage, and it truly never has been it has simply been a potential, than one must revisit the entire idea of State interest in the matter at all.
So, the real question, as I have said before it: Should the government and the state get out of the marriage business?
To answer YES to that question is truly the only way that anyone is going to regain "RIGHTS" and "FREEDOMS."
To answer NO, and to continue on with this nonsense of granting equal "right's" to the homosexual community, is to once again relinquish freedom and right's under the false narrative that you are gaining either.
Does it not occur to you that same-gender couples need the protection of marriage for the same reasons that heterosexual couples need protections?
Picture this... Two men who have been together for 50 years. One partner was in upper management before he retired--made decent money. The other was a teacher. They have some savings--a house that's paid for... They both receive social security.
Now, if the former manager has a stroke and goes into a nursing home for long-term care, the couple, just like a heterosexual couple, would have to spend down their assets to something like $80,000 before Medicaid would step in to cover the cost of long-term care.
Here's the difference... When Medicaid begins paying for the care in the homosexual couple's situation, Medicaid will stop all of the former manager's Social Security benefits. They take the Social Security to help reduce the amount that the government is paying for long-term care.
This leaves the former teacher with one source of income--his own social security. And since he didn't make as much money--didn't pay as much into the Social Security system, then he is at risk of having to sell the house and its contents in order to make up for the huge cut in pay. He may end up on welfare or relying on charity just to get by.
With the legally married heterosexual couple, the dual social security income that the couple had relied on is not cut. The spouse who continues to live at home can continue to draw 100% of the spouse's income; the one who lives in a nursing home.
The Federal Government made the decision a few decades back to do this so that the spouse living at home would not have to sell everything in order to survive.
And if one spouses in the married couple dies, the other spouse continues receiving income from the deceased for life.
This doesn't happen with same-gender couples.
If one spouse has Medicare in a legally married couple, then both have access to it. It's not available to an unmarried same-gender couple.
These are two VERY REAL concerns for same-gender couples.
Heterosexual couples could marry at age 70 and get the protections that a same-gender couple, who have been married for 50 years, cannot get.
Same-gender couples cannot get FMLA. So if one of the partners becomes sick, the other cannot have job protection in order to care for him/her.
Same-gender couples need the protection of marriage just like heterosexual couples.