Savarel wrote:These sorts of controversies are what happens when you involve the government in regulating religious and/or cultural traditions.
And finally... lets face it. There is ZERO reason to prohibit gay marriage unless you invoke religion. And the US is not a theocracy. So lets PLEASE move on from this endless idiotic debate about gay marriage.
While I agree with you that this whole thing is driven by religion, there are some serious civil issues raised such as survivor's rights, health care decisions, and so forth. And what happens if I live with two different women, say my wife and a friend of ours.
Arizona, where I think you live too, has fairly progressive laws on some of these issues, we are very backward in most ways though. In Arizona we ban gay marriage but have legal support for domestic partnerships and a lot of rights for registered partnerships.
Yet, in the situation above, if our friend got pregnant, Arizona law would automatically define me as the baby's father even if we had never slept together. (I'm not sure if that is based on our legislature codifying virgin birth or what). But that is one problem with trying to "simplify" things based on observable such as living arrangements. Simplification leads to complication! The state has an interest in knowing who the father is to enforce the child's right to support. But by trying to use living arrangements without getting very invasive turns into a mess.
Why not just let the two people go register at the courthouse and be done with it?