So...

[kandrathe]

I'm honestly curious, and no, I don't know if marriage is a beneficial privilege. Off-hand I'd say it's outmoded and detrimental.

Biologically speaking we are all instruments of gene propagation. So a female who is weaker (as in humans, and some other primates) benefits by having a male hang around and cooperatively raise the offspring. Human males desire to hang around to insure that no other male has access to the female. He also desires to hang around throughout the childhood to insure the maturation of his offspring and thereby propagation of his genes. Some biologists believe that "LOVE" is a trick of genetics to convince us that monogamy is the right thing. Recent studies (Barash & Lipton) show that genetic tests over several generations reveal a significant percentage of children born within a marriage are not from the father of the household. The science demonstrates that women's sexual selection is different from their husband selection(nurturer). What I found most interesting was that the percentage remained pretty constant over time, even with vastly changing social mores.

But to me marriage is;
1) a lifelong commitment to unite with another human being. That means to me that we will always work to resolve any disagreements until we are of one mind.
2) a religious rite signifying to the church that we both intend the above.
3) a contract bound by state laws which now treats the two of us as one individual.

Of course, to me #3 is the most pointless, but yet I think it still is neccesary to prevent some "oddball" sect from allowing marriages of children. So in order to have a law about a thing, you need to define the thing. So, if we want to respect religious freedoms (except the polygamy of Mormons, Muslims, or others) then we need to have a clear standard legal definition. If you start tugging at the fabric of the basis for law in a Judeo-Christian society you might not like how it all unravels. I think the solution is to find a way for the States to remove any legal differences between "Marriage" and "Domestic Partnerships" -- and leave the religion out of it. As it is now, one can simply mirror most of the "benefits" of #3 above through legal contract.

If what the people pursuing this issue desire is a huge backlash, then by all means attack a sacred rite within a Judeo-Christian society -- and then to add fuel to fire, led by people with whom a large percentage of the society tolerates but still finds morally reprehensible. Objectively, I would like to see anyone try to go to any Islamic nation and try change one similiar religious custom. You might survive if you were an Islamic holy man, but I suspect not. Imagine the jihad ammunition that would be generated if the USA sanctioned same-sex marriages. Heck, you'd have fanatics from Texas, Wyoming and Montana flying planes into the Congress and the White House.

The Myth of Monogamy : Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People