>Ah, logic by assertion. And by this logic, when a same-sex couple is turned away at the courthouse, they are actually being pushed into a relationship with someone else? Are they handing out brides and grooms there, or how does that work, exactly?<
Let me give you an example of the kind of thing we're looking at.
Jim and Dave have lived together for 20 years. Bought a house, supported each-other in successful careers, nursed each-other through illnesses: been, for all intents and purposes, a single entity. Their families both disapprove.
Jim becomes terminally ill. While he's in the hospital, Dave is at his bedside (much like you would be for your wife).
At the same time, Jim's family sweeps in. Changes the locks on the house (which was in Jim's name), and basically takes everything the two of them had. Dave's legal recourse is nil, as they don't enjoy the same legal protection a married couple does.
Yes, they COULD have spent thousands of dollars, drawing up wills and suchlike. To get the same protections Spoon and I got for $65 at the courthouse.
That's just one example of the inequality, Fistful. There have been same-sex partners barred from being at their partners bedside in the hospital, numerous examples of the above story, and other legal entanglements... all of which would have been avoided if they had that protection.
So... let the government handle the legal contract issue, make it between any two or more consenting adults (with no other qualifiers), and let the churches handle the word "marriage"