|
I have no expectation that we'll co-exist in perfect harmony.
It is interesting that the things that would be difficult to maintain in the absence of state defined marriage are the very aspects of traditional marriage that we are told don't really carry in weight when deciding to expand it to include gays.
Why do retirement benefits continue with a surviving spouse? Traditionally, because of the assumption that the non-earning spouse gave up any attempt at earning an income so that they could run the household of the breadwinner. What does that have to do with modern marriage?
So far as I know, Health Insurance Company A has no obligation to pay for the medical bills of a spouse (Lani's certainly doesn't pay for me unless we pay more for her insurance) except insofar as that is negotiated. Besides, get your blessed universal single-payer healthcare and that issue goes away.
Again, I have no illusion that the transition would be easy. Nor would the result be the exact same system we have now. But it would be a lot less stupid than the system we have now.
|