So why the concept of “marriage” at all at the governmental level?

You have very good points, but the one thing that I can't think of a way to address without a concept of marriage is the homemaker. As an employee of a company that provides benefits to me and my family, I can't think of a way to get the government to define the fact that they also are required to provide benefits to my wife without calling her my spouse or some arbitrary circumlocution that would essentially mean spouse.

define the fact that they also are required to provide benefits to my wife without calling her my spouse

Easy. When you sign the forms, you simply nominate one person to receive those benefits. It could be your wife, your mother, your dog, Elvis or even Santa Claus. OK, it would actually have to be a real, living, person -- but there's no need for any circumlocution.

But then could I also say that my friend living in another town also receives benefits? I mean, I suppose I could, but that seems to ignore the spirit of the idea, that we should all be working except those supporting those who are.

but that seems to ignore the spirit of the idea, that we should all be working except those supporting those who are.

Well, in this particular case I think you've nailed down the concept. Each working person has the opportunity to designate someone who takes on a supporting role, and I'd think this person would have to live at the same address to count. Sure this means that you could designate your brother who moved in and isn't working, but then that's actually closer to the real idea anyway right? To identify those who play a supporting role, regardless of how they're related? Who cares if it's my wife or my brother who assumes that role as long as we all can agree I get to designate one person.

True. I suppose that would work.

Each working person has the opportunity to designate someone who takes on a supporting role, and I'd think this person would have to live at the same address to count.

I have a friend who's primary residence is in Tennessee, yet his job and secondary residence is in Virginia. He only sees his wife once a month, and spends most of his time at the secondary residence. I know this is like comparing apples to oranges, but what about the instances where the couple doesn't live together?

Still, his official residence is the same place as his wife.

I suppose, but he wants all of his business mail sent to his secondary residence. But I guess for tax purposes, his primary residence would do.

Really, and I think most of us would agree here, the government probably has no business governing people’s sexuality.

Which devolves our conversation once again to politics. How can you believe that and even *possibly* vote Republican?

How can you believe that and even *possibly* vote Republican?

Well that's up in the air these days. I just know I won't vote for a Democrat!

Seriously, though, my core beliefs tend to be similar to most Republicans. I DO think that homosexual behavior is sin and therefore unhealthy, I just think that forcing people to conform by legal means isn't going to help much. I'd rather people believe and do the "right" thing because they agree that it is right, not because the Government tells them to.