Civil unions aren’t what they want. In truth, this isn’t even really about tax and financial benefits. It’s about forcing you, me, and everybody else to accept something that we might otherwise not willingly accept. It’s about being able to say “We’re married, and you WILL accept it!” But why do they choose government to achieve this rather than simply convince the churches to go along with it? Simple:

Government is the only entity with a legal monopoly on force. Government passes such-and-such a law, but the only way it can ensure that people obey said law is through the threat of physical force. Without force, John Doe could simply say to government “Up yours.” No, government has to be able to guarantee that people will obey its laws. And so it forces one to obey. Disobey and you find yourself in handcuffs, behind bars, or worse.

Now obviously government has to be able to use force to guarantee that we obey laws. The question is whether or not government should exercise that force in a preemptive manner, or should force be strictly used in a retaliatory sense? That is another discussion for another day.

And so the “gay rights” activists advocate that government be the entity to ensure gay “marriage”, because government has the ability to guarantee that you bow your knee and obey. The conservative is equally guilty in advocating that government mandate marriage be only between men and women. (Which should go a long way towards disproving the notion that conservatives believe in less government regulation. They don’t want less government regulation, they simply want government to regulate things their way, as opposed to the leftist’s way. They want different government regulation, not necessarily less.)

Sure, taxes and other financial benefits play a part. But that’s not the heart of the matter. The real issue is control. The conservatives and the pseudo-liberals are different sides of the same coin, saying the same thing: “We will make you accept our way.” (I say “pseudo-liberal” because real, old-school classical liberalism has virtually nothing in common with today’s fake “liberalism”.)

And so the gay-rights activists refuse to leave the matter in the hands of religious institutions. (Hell, for that matter, they refuse to leave it in the hands of the majority, as evidenced by their gnashing-of-teeth at California’s constitutional amendment.) Because 1) freedom of religion is still the law of the land, and 2) most churches still won’t recognize gay “marriage”, and 3) only government has a legal monopoly on the use of force, they advocate that government make you conform.

I wish we really had a free market economy and a government that knew its place.

You hit the nail right on the head. People indeed do have to apply and pay for marriage licenses through the government. Which is exactly what I was arguing against. It’s just another example of government injecting itself into an area it doesn’t belong in.

It is not the proper role of government to sanction a romantic relationship.

As for the tax benefits, here’s another novel idea: Simplify the tax code so that people won’t need to change their marital status for such-and-such a benefit.