Marriage is a cultural institution...and religious for many but not all.  As relationships tend away from "ownership" to relationship, marriage loses something that it promised:  You belong to Me and I belong to You.  There are legalities that married folk enjoy; however, there are also legal bindings.  I attempted to make my children my primary beneficiarys (on my retirement policies), and that required my husband's permission!   Now we are not the usual couple...I am, and have been for a long time, the primary wage earner...and I am required to ask him what I can do with my money. 

 

It's odd...it never occurred to me until that happened that marriage was restrictive in that regard as well as enabling.  But there you have it.

 

I guess I understand why gay and lesbian couples want the 'legitimacy' that marriage might grant, but I also think that they're allowing the conversation to continue in terms not theirs.  They're allowing their relationships to be defined in heterosexual terms, and they're not heterosexual.  It's rather like feminists using the language of the patriarchy to explain/defend feminism.  It's nearly impossible, and nearly entirely futile to attempt to do so.  If their relationships are different, then set their own definitions and terms.  Then make the legalities follow...but if they want to be married...play here comes the Groom.