

Besides funny rituals invloving deities, what is material in neoliberal capitalistic world is that there are various exclusive legal rights for partners over property, in labor forces, over child upbringing and in other fields. A select group of heterosexual partners who co-signed and keeps that deal with church/gvmnt gets a different treatment and some benefits no other party gets. It sounds petty and surreal to hold belief this custom should exist for that whole group but not +2% percents who are not heterosexual.
Single people, single parents, partners not married are way larger groups that are to look into discussing the marriage privelege. There can be no logical reason into pushing LGBTQ+ folks out but, emh, being more occupied with their personal live than their own. And with how many legalized gay marriage are in her state, there’d probably more court clerk involved into reviewing her whining than there are actual married gays, portraying how relevant and/or significant her problem with them.
For both law and market it isn’t reasonable to generate subcategories that small, as they seek the most optimized approach in classificating clients. While the state would instinctively want to calculate owned taxes as clear as possible, the market would feel ganked on for it doesn’t know what to do there, like, they need to invent new flavors of rings and decorations for incorrectly wed people? It is unreasonable to say the least, I bet they would still sell the same rings for hetero pairs and it would only lead into a spiral of moral-inspired lawsuits.
I don’t feel that person can be involved in any discussion about gay people. I’m not a gay person myself but I have a gay friend so I get it naturally. Sorry for rambling, I was farming for my second diamond hoe while dictating it.
28 ha is easy to understand if put as hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah over US legal system.