Who gets benefits bundles? Should these bundles even exist?

Source: quote page

When I was reading the articles on gay marriage rights, I was doing so down on a couch in the house I share with five of my friends. Andy and his male fiancé came in from the porch and I asked them what their stance on this whole debacle was. Andy sighed as he sat down. 

"Marriage is too much trouble," he said. "The word 'marriage,' I mean. It's tied to religion and to the past. Religion should be able to keep its word. What we want is a new institution of legal unions. Marriages with all the legal benefits but not under the word 'marriage.'"

I think Andy’s viewpoint is interesting because he taps into the seeming need for a new legal unions institution. But I would argue, What about the gay religious people? And wouldn’t keeping marriage for the straight couples still perpetuate the inequality? 

But something must change, because by withholding the benefits bundle from same-sex couples by denying them the right to marry, the state is communicating to gay and lesbian citizens that their desires and their stable commitments are less than other people’s. This infringes upon both their liberty and equality. 

But. It also must be understood that the state privileges one type of union between two people over others for a reason. It believes that heterosexual marriage contributes to the state’s overall stability, happiness, and progress. So, if we are arguing for the state to broaden its stance and provide a broader swath of unions the marriage benefits bundle, which unions should the state support? Where should we draw the line? Is there any way to know if certain types of unions (polygamy, for example) might be harmful to those involved and might contribute to union instability—and therefore national instability?

In an article by Jillian Keenan (quoted in the article linked above):

“Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”

I don’t ascribe to the slippery-slope fear mongering about gay marriage, and this cartoon from MoveOn.org encapsulates my opinion of those who use that fear tactic to argue against gay marriage.

From MoveOn.org.

But at the same time, the principles behind the equality argument get me thinking: how do we have a right to draw a line? Most people, including me, shudder at the idea of legalizing polygamy. But do we stop after gay marriage and give no more queer or unconventional groups the benefits bundle? Or should be not allow the state to use a benefits bundle to discriminate between unions and keep perpetuating a narrow legal definition of human relationships?

I don’t have an answer—I’m still struggling with these ideas. Part of me wants to say that unconventional relationships should be studied somehow to determine whether or not they are stable, productive, and healthy for those involved (if they are equal as relationships to monogamous ones). If they are, then they can be encouraged by the state. But how would we even do that? And is there some sort of option completely outside of the current system that might be better at dealing with this issue?

Ideas?