And the tax code is convoluted?

"As for the protection of women, children and any animals you care to bring into the equation, there are ample numbers of domestic protection statues on the books to prevent perverts from marrying children, siblings, parents, pets, etc. Polygamy is against the law ALREADY... and that law has been upheld due to conflicts of Constitutionally protected rights, so I am confident that they will stand up quite nicely even if the government isn't handing out marriage licenses anymore."

This is perhaps the most tortured, disparate, convoluted paragraph I have ever read you write. Look, I understand what you're proposing - marriage is consecrated by God, and a matter between two private parties. Fine, but you can't half way that. Either you believe the sate has the right / vested interest/ authority to regulate marriage, or you do not. They are either "playing the game" or they are not. It is inconsistent to say that the state has NO right to regulate marriage via licensing, but maintain they do have a right to regulate whether marriage is singular or plural; between two adults or not; incestuous; etc. Furthermore if the state is simply recognizing any consenting union or marriage of any stripe because the entire matter is a private affair, would the state not then have to abide by the precepts set down within the religion, group, (GLADD etc) or atheist institution regarding divorce? This is insanity. No one is for the deregulation of government more than I, but I recognize some basic proper roles for government (defense etc). I'm sorry, but I need some consistency from you here buddy. How is it consistent to advocate the state's involvement in defining marriage between only 2 people; between only 2 adults; between only homosapiens; regulate property dispersment and child custody upon divorce, but then declare the state has NO right to regulate the sex of the 2 parties? This is what I find wholly inconsistent.

"As far as benefits and tax-ratings go, I would lump this question in with the simple fact that the tax code is already so convoluted I can't imagine this making it any more so. If two atheists want to be married, then a precedent exists in that two adults, cohabiting for more than 12 months and sharing the same permanent mailing address can be considered a "common law" marriage for the purposes of taxes. Problem solved."

Ummm, no actually, not "problem solved." The great state of Nevada has no common law ... law. Again, I am shocked that you defend the New Deal as "necessary", if not "successful" (gag, choke) government interventionism; AND want the state to regulate all of the aspects associated with marriage above, but find they have no intrinsic authority to regulate sex. You are comfortable and find they have the intrinsic authority to promote the general welfare by regulating nearly every other aspect, be it age, plural marriage, human only marriage, post marriage "rules", multiple marriage, etc, but NOT sex via licensing. What if my religion calls for multiple marriages to "spread my seed?" How about heiroms in which I am "married" to each woman? What if I am set to marry a woman with AIDS, should the state cease blood tests prior to the ceremony? In other words you are either going to leave the entire affair up to the respective religions and private parties, or you are not.

And by the way, "legislate morality?" Really? Are you going to invoke that tired phrase? My argument could be used to justify slavery? Oh, ok ... slavery, ok. I find it almost laughable that you will invoke the practices of centuries and millena ago to support your argument that traditionally the state has no authority to intervene in marriage, yet apply the above to me. In other words, if you are to invoke traditions of years past to justify your tossing the state out of marriage then let me note in those "times" everything from Crucifixion, bondage, slavery, stoning, torture, debtors jails, subjugation of women etc existed. If my argument calls upon the ghost of slavery's past justification arguments, then certainly your citing Medieval and Renaissance marriage law (all the way back to "the beginning") causes me to question the jurisprudence of the men in the times in which you cite.

So lets return to the more sane arguments, huh?

"Look, if someone could show me where the Constitution, or any other founding document, established this government with the right to regulate marriage one way or the other, then I would change my tune and work diligently towards a Constitutional amendment making marriage in the US a singular process in which a man is wed to a woman ... THAT is the problem (the "slippery slope", if you will) of having governmental regulation of areas not specifically delineated by the Constitution"

Ok. Then as I sit here and type today you are ready to advocate the break up and complete dissolution of the Department of Education; The Federal Reserve; The EPA; Medicaid; Medicare; The Social Security System; welfare; food stamps; student loan programs; and EVERY OTHER program, social safety net and department that is NOT SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED BY THE US CONSTITUTION ... right?

This is what I mean - this is the classic "too clever by half" argument that ultimately breaks down around a lack of consistency. And that's MY opinion.