Would it not have been easier, in hindsight, to have changed the applicable clauses in the IRS regulations, and the entire rest of the government, to cover persons who have taken a vow of “civil union” as accepted under the regulations, and left the definition of “marriage”, with all its historic connotations, alone for the purpose it was created in tradition and the law, the union of one man and one woman?
But NOOOO, they had to get all “in your face”, in their frenzied haste to “throw off” all the symbols and trappings of a settled and generally comfortable arrangement that had worked perfectly well, even antedating the Christian traditions, and extending well back into tribal and clan roots, even before an agricultural society existed.
There ARE no new “family unit” arrangements that have not been tried over and over in history, only to come back to the generally accepted arrangements, of “one man, one woman”, with all its taboos and restrictions, that make for a much more civil and polite society, with its measured and defined roles. Of course family extends far beyond the “nuclear” model, but at its heart, the traditions are passed along from generation to generation, and no society goes far outside these traditions except at its own great peril, personally and for the broader community.
Interesting idea.
Marriage wasn't created "in tradition and the law." It was created by God, at the very beginning. In just the same way "up" and "down" were created by God. It is what it is. Tradition and law are forced to deal with these realities, and to be just and non-destructive they have to conform to them, but they didn't create them.
This is not a nitpick. It's very important. The camel's nose in the tent is the idea that men, or governments, have any kind of legitimate choice in matters of natural law.