Great! Clever too :)

This is just wrong, none of those have anything to do with this website from the looks of it. Also, how can you judge a startups health with a cursory look at the site?

Good points. The state shouldn't be in it at all, because calling it marriage can be an infringement on the religious liberties of others. Civil unions are the state-sanctioned "legal pairing of two humans", and marriages are the religious term for civil unions - and come with religious expectations.

The state shouldn't be in the business of certifying christenings or bar mitzvahs, nor should it be in the business of marriage for the same exact reasons.

This is by far the most ridiculous reasoning I’ve seen for a company being too big. Because too many users get restricted from the service unintentionally then the provider is too big?

That may be your perspective and the academic treatment of gentrification, but it’s use almost entirely seems to have been racial in recent years.

Wealthy black people moving into a neighborhood of other black people, and displacing them, gets no attention. Wealthy POC moving into a poor white neighborhood happens all the time in Atlanta, no mention of gentrification.

The word may having a different meaning in the dictionary, but it’s actual use almost always seems to be racial, and almost always about white people displacing non whites

I’d be careful to suggest it has so much to do with “real factors” like relative safety to ease of survival and more with cultural effects. We see this observationally as subsets of the US have lifelong marriage rates in the 90%s, specifically religious communities.

I don’t recall the exact numbers but even just considering how many sexual partners people have can drastically change average likelihood of eventually divorce - with virgin couples above 80% AFAIK (some overlap with religious communities likely). Even a few decades ago when survival was still pretty easy marriage had higher success rates.

The culture probably has a lot more to do with the rate of successful marriages than our safety or lifespan

Do civil unions have the same “benefits” of marriage? If not there should be.

I think the distinction should be socio-cultural: if you don’t accept that this civil union is “till death do us part”, then by definition it shouldn’t be marriage - it’s a civil union. All the same benefits of marriage with none of the cultural components.