On Marriage

William Saletan wrote a post earlier today about how the military should treat straight domestic partners, polyamorous couples, or incestuous couples in light of the DADT repeal.  As usual, he raises a really good topic; but as usual, he stops short of saying anything of much use on it, opting instead of platitudes like "Is homosexuality about who you love or who you are? That debate, unresolved by the fight over DADT, will rage on."  He fails to bring up the central question of the military's treatment of romance, though: why does it care?  Why does it give partner benefits?  Questions like who should be able to visit a soldier in the hospital could be resolved by that soldier providing a list of who should see him in the case of injury--a list that wouldn't have to be specifically bound to marital status.  As for questions like tax breaks for couples and different treatment of income from individuals and couples--why do these distinctions exist?  Why does the state care who you're married to?  Why is marriage even a legal status at all, instead of a personal one?  Questions about regulating incest are different, but as for which types of unions we legally recognize--why do we recognize any?