2009. The whole "gay rights" movement is still up in arms over the supposed right to an institutionalized marriage. A mere century ago (and less), self-proclaimed progressives (especially radical homosexuals) were up in arms about abolishing the "oppressive and outdated" institution of marriage. Does that make sense to you? If it's just about money, I guess that makes sense. But most homosexuals are not satisfied with civil unions. So what else could it be? There are only two possibilities: the desire for universal acceptance of homosexuality by creating the perception of normalcy, or the genuine sentimental belief in romantic love (as opposed to lust) irrespective of gender.
I ask, why is the government in the marriage business to begin with? The idea of marriage is not written in the stars, though it may be vaguely written in the heart. Marriage, a true life-long vow between a man and a woman for the purpose of naturally generating and raising a family (if possible) is an entirely religious thing. Moreover, can anyone explain to me why anyone thinks it is a human right to receive tax breaks and other benefits simply because you took a breakable (by law) vow - which is not, therefore, really a vow at all - with another person, with whom you exchanged little metal rings that you wear on your third left finger? Do not insult our intelligence by telling us such benefits exist for the sake of the children, for the working people of planet Earth have never succeeded in getting their capitalist masters to provide a rational family wage for every one spouse. It goes without saying that the spare change you get from the state for being "married" by them does next to nothing for the children.
So I say abolish marriage. It is and should be an exclusively religious thing, not an economic thing, and the government is bad at it. To the elites I say, respect it, but don't institutionalize it. Instead, why not just not hoard all the wealth? What do you have to lose? To which they would surely answer: "Our slaves."