> 2) This is the wrong frame of mind. The answer is zero.
What? That doesn't make sense. At a glance, otherwise, what's the point of marriage versus civil unions? I'm assuming here, and could be wrong, that there's no legal difference - but people still fight for marriage when they can only have civil unions.
Even if you got rid of all the legal and pay advantages to marriage, people still find it valuable and enriching. It may be an ephemeral benefit, but it's still articulable.
> what's the point of marriage versus civil unions? I'm assuming here, and could be wrong, that there's no legal difference
Yep, there are/where legal distinctions (sort of irrelevant now in the US with federalized same-sex marriage). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States . The main problem is that unlike marriages, there is no requirement that states recognize civil unions granted in other states, because:
> The federal government does not recognize these unions.
Not a direct legal distinction, but:
> Civil unions are commonly criticised as being 'separate but equal', critics say they segregate same-sex couples by forcing them to use a separate institution.
What? That doesn't make sense. At a glance, otherwise, what's the point of marriage versus civil unions? I'm assuming here, and could be wrong, that there's no legal difference - but people still fight for marriage when they can only have civil unions.
Even if you got rid of all the legal and pay advantages to marriage, people still find it valuable and enriching. It may be an ephemeral benefit, but it's still articulable.