Marriage, Equality, and What Really Deserves State Support

Right now, the media is full of heated debates about whether same-sex marriages should be given the same legal recognition as “traditional” marriages. The discussion isn’t just about symbolism—it’s about practical matters too: tax advantages, legal protections, and social rights such as adoption.

As someone who is deeply interested in this topic, though not eligible to vote in Germany myself, I’ve been thinking a lot about what lies at the core of the issue. To ground my thoughts, I went straight to the source: Article 6 of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz).

It says:

1. Marriage and family enjoy the special protection of the state.
2. The care and upbringing of children are the natural right of parents and their duty, watched over by the state.
3. Children can only be separated from their parents against their will by law, if the parents fail in their duties or if the children are otherwise in danger of neglect.
4. Every mother is entitled to the protection and care of the community.
5. The law must ensure that children born outside of marriage have the same opportunities for physical, mental, and emotional development as children born in wedlock.

Now, what exactly do we mean by “marriage” and “family”? The Grundgesetz itself provides guidance:

• Marriage is defined as a “community of two adults directed toward a lifelong union.”
• Family includes not only parents and biological children, but also stepchildren, foster children, and adopted children.

Nowhere here does it say anything about the gender of the marriage partners. Perhaps in some older legal texts or interpretations you’ll find references, but in the core constitutional language, it’s not there.

So my reading is simple: any two adults, legally defined as those over 18, may marry. The state has an obligation to protect these unions, because marriage is seen as the nucleus of family. That protection naturally includes certain privileges—legal, social, and practical—to support the stability of the household.

But does that automatically mean marriage should also come with tax advantages? This is where my thinking takes a turn.

I fully agree that families—especially families with children—deserve state support. Raising children is expensive, time-consuming, sometimes takes it’s toll on job and career, and yet essential for society’s future. The state has every interest in making parenthood feasible, both financially and socially. That’s clear.

But two married adults without children? Why should they be rewarded with lower taxes simply for being married? In fact, such policies may even encourage marriages for financial convenience, rather than for love or for building a family. My hunch is that these marriages are less likely to last compared to those rooted in genuine partnership.

The same question applies to same-sex couples. Of course, they should have full legal equality, the right to marry, and the same access to adoption and family formation. But should a dual-income household without children—whether straight or gay—receive tax privileges? I don’t see why.

This is where the distinction becomes important:

• Marriage deserves legal recognition and protection.
• Families deserve financial and social support.

And those aren’t necessarily the same thing.

Instead of pouring billions into blanket tax breaks for all marriages, we could redirect those resources into real family support: childcare, preschools, after-school programs, and stronger educational opportunities. Not just higher child benefits, but real infrastructure that helps parents balance work and family life. That would benefit both children and society as a whole.

Pair that with the full legal equality of same-sex marriages, and I believe we’d see a genuine step forward. Equal rights for all couples, and stronger, smarter support for families. That combination would strengthen love, stability, and the next generation all at once.