In Europe in the middle ages, the roman catholic church regulated marriage. In various reformations and revolutions, governments seized the power to regulate marriage from the roman catholic church. When America was founded by colonists from England, the american government regulated marriage because the founders of America had always lived in a society where the government regulated marriage, and were not aware of any alternatives.
Government regulation of marriage in America is left over from the religious governments of the middle ages in Europe. Marriage is part of religion. The government should not regulate marriage because government should not regulate religion.
Government policies should ignore marriage. The government should treat married people the same as unmarried people. The government should not know who is married and who is not married.
The government should allow people to organize themselves into groups, where the members of the group share assets, debts, income, and expenses. Such a group would be like a marriage or a family, but it should not be called a mariage or a family; there should be a new word to describe these groups.
Many groups would consist of one man, one woman, and their children. Groups could be homosexual or polygamous. A large extended family could be one group. A commune of many people could be one group. A monastery of monks could be one group.
A group is a legal arrangement for sharing money, and has nothing to do with sex.
If one member of a group borrows money and does not repay the loan, any asset of any member of the group can be seized to repay the loan.
No member of a group can accuse any other member of the same group of stealing, because all possessions of all members are shared. When you join a group, you give everything you own to the group.
Any person can create a group with any other person. A group can have any number of members. No person can be a member of more than one group.
People will not be willing to share money unless they have a strong personal relationship. Thus we can assume that all members of a group have a strong personal relationship with all other members of the group.
If a member of a group dies, the other members of the group inherit the money and children of that member, and the group is responsible for the funeral.
If a member of a group becomes disabled, the other members of the group are responsible for taking care of that person.
If a child member of a group is abused, all the adult members of the group should be punished.
If one member of a group is accused of a crime, the other members of the group should not be forced to testify against the accused.
The income tax should have two categories: single and group. If you file a
single return, you list your income and your deductions; you
cannot claim any dependents or any one
else's deductions. For a group return, you list all the income and all the deductions for all members of the group. A high income person can save taxes by joining a group of low income persons, but that makes the high income person responsible for the debts and expenses of the low income persons.
For pensions, groups are irrelevant. For a pension which supports dependents of the pensioner, the pensioner should list dependents. The relationship between the pensioner and the dependent is irrelevant. The pensioner can list anyone as a dependent and can list any number of dependents. The more dependents the pensioner lists, the smaller the pension is.
For medical benefits, the pensioner/worker should list dependents. The more dependents the pensioner/worker lists, the smaller the pension/pay is.
This would treat homosexuals the same as heterosexuals.
I think that people's sex lives are nobody else's business. I think the government should not discriminate against homosexuals. I think that homosexual marriage should be legal. I think that the government should not punish anyone for performing or participating in homosexual marriage.
But homosexual marriage is not illegal. Who has been fined or imprisoned for performing or participating in homosexual marriage?
I do not think the government should support, endorse, reward, encourage, promote, or subsidize homosexual marriage. I think the government should ignore homosexuality.
Some of the people who support homosexual marriage want homosexuals to receive benefits and tax credits like traditional marriages. This is the equivalent of government subsidy of homosexuality. I am opposed to this. I think the benefits and tax credits of traditional marriage should be reformed into something that is not a subsidy of marriage or heterosexuality, as described above.
Some of the people who support homosexual marriage want government recognition for homosexual marraige. What does that mean? Do they want the government to bless homosexual marriages? Blessings come from gods. The government is not a god. Do they want the government to say that homosexuality is not immoral? Morality is a religious issue. The government should not regulate morality because the government should not regulate religion. The government should not say homosexuality is moral. The government should not say homosexuality is immoral.
Some people are opposed to homosexuality and some people are in favor of homosexuality. If the government outlaws homosexuality, then the antihomosexuals are imposing their values onto the prohomosexuals by force. If the government supports homosexuality, then the prohomosexuals are imposing their values onto the antihomosexuals by force. This is why I think the government should ignore homosexuality.