THIS is why I didn't want to play...

See? You instantly jump to the wrong conclusions... every single time.

We simply have different definitions of what a "marriage" is and what makes it valid. Marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a women, sealed by God and recognized by society (if we are lucky)... but NOT the other way around. It is not sealed by society and then simply recognized by God. THAT is the greatest danger in furthering government's right to regulate and manage the marriage state.

If I am a consenting adult, and choose to marry a consenting adult, I fail to see where the State has the right to deny me that privilege based on any criteria beyond the two-degrees of separation (which all do now, anyway). I certainly don't want government "maintaining" any particular moral or religious "traditions" that may or may not reflect my personal views... it isn't their JOB.

A "civil" marriage is the result of Anglican influence in America's founding. There was no separation of church and state in England during the colonial period, and since magistrates were members of the House of Lords, which was made up of landed gentry and clergy, they maintained the notion that their "religious" duties carried into their secular role, and since there was typically a fee associated with a civil marriage for the magistrate or lord performing it, it was doubly convenient.

Time was, marriages weren't even recognized as anything BUT a religious rite, and were completely outside of the secular (or King's) authority. The millennial-old concept of the marriage contract was drawn up between the two parties (if not always between the two individuals getting married)... and no secular government could interfere or act against that contract. This was the ROOT of the entire break with the Roman Catholics that made Henry VIII such a prominent figure in Anglican history.

I am a Catholic, and I believe that the bonds of marriage are put in place by the people actually getting married... the man and the woman... and these bonds are recognized and blessed by God. THAT is what makes a marriage, not a license from the government. If I want a Catholic wedding, I must follow the precepts laid down by the Church so that the ceremony can be performed to MY satisfaction... not the satisfaction of the government. The same holds true for Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Christians, Hindus... the list is quite long.

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.

I am extremely uncomfortable in asking the government to legislate "morality" based on nothing more than the need to maintain "traditional values and practices". That is the same argument that was made to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-suffrage sentiments in the past. If a gay or lesbian couple wants to "marry", then it needs to find an established (meaning recognized, "tax-exempt" organization) church-synagogue-temple-mosque that will do the deed so they can stop going to the local court house and making such a fuss about "freedom" and "inherent rights".

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.

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. I'm sure Justice Kennedy is correct, and there is no Constitutional right to gay marriage... but my contention is that there is no Constitutional grounds to deny it, either, as long as it remains something that our secular government can (and does) regulate from start to finish. THAT is the problem (the "slippery slope", if you will) of having governmental regulation of areas not specifically delineated by the Constitution... its hard to deny what you shouldn't be trying to enforce in the first place.

Further more, this is simply my OPINION. I make no judgement, morally or ethically, one way or the other. I would support an amendment to make marriage as traditional as possible in a second, and with a happy heart. I simply see no rational reasoning for the amendment that won't get overturned later by a liberal, anti-traditional Court.