You are trespassing against me ...

You are taking obtuse to an entirely new level! First off, you have at the very least capitulated that there are instances in which the government properly assumes the role of "regulating morality." I just read that.

Now ... your argument is that the government has no right to deny same sex couples the "status" of heterosexual couples because the government shouldn't be in the business of "regulating morality" when it comes to 2 consenting adults not set on "hurting" a third, innocent party. Yet, yet, you point to specific instances in which you endorse their doing just that!

1.) Suicide (first, I agree in its illegality, my point here is the inconsistency in your premise): it is ERRONEOUS in the extreme for you summarily judge all individuals attempting suicide as unable to make sane judgments, thus their right to death is justifiably denied them. What about those with a chronic, debilitating, painful illness? Could they not be in full control of their mental faculties? Perhaps knowing they will join God, cease their physical pain and the financial burden of caring for them they make the judgment to end their life on their terms. The idea that Titus in NEPA can summarily judge these people as "nuts" , thus the government is justified in denying them their chosen "out" is PREPOSTEROUS. So if a person can be "certified" sane in a court of law, present the reasoning for their choice of suicide in a manner we all understand as above (the illness scenario), then YOU, Titus, by your own argument must as a juror grant them the right to preform the suicide, and the right of the Kevorkian assistant to pursue his "profession", right?

2.) Plural marriage ... (which by the way I am 100% opposed to):

"Multiple marriages, child marriages, and any obviously abusive associations that you wish to hold up as examples of the "evil" associated with a deviant lifestyle are also regulated by the government... because they are harmful to individuals that are either not part of the decision making process involved or are incapable of making the decisions themselves."

Woah, woah, woah, waoh. Wait just a damn minute.

Forget child marriage or any other injured third party. We are talking about 3 consenting adults that don't want to bother anyone, just want to live their life, pay their taxes, worship their God and raise their kids. Are you telling me that if you wish to engage in this that BY DEFINITION you are mentally deficient to the point of being "incapable of making decisions?" Are you kidding? To advocate plural marriage you are BY DEFINITION no longer sane, thus the government has the right to deny your request? What if I were to say that about gay marriage, which is also illegal in at least 15 states? "Homophobe!" you'd scream. "Bigot" you'd yell! What the hell are you talking about Titus? So any one in any era that engaged in plural marriage was "mental?" This is a cop out of an answer and you know it.

And as such you STILL have not explained why it is "okay" for the government to"discriminate" against 3 consenting adults that are NOT set on injuring a third, or under age party and NOT "insane", or "emotionally disabled." By your own argument polygamy should be legal, or at least its' legality left up to the individual states. I keep coming back to this and you keep lumping it in with "child marriage." Again, why is it "okay" to deny them the same "status" as a traditional marriage, but not for homosexual marriage? See, this is the slippery slope I am concerned with when the definition of marriage is opened up to interpretation.

"... but I fail to see where I (or the Federal Government) has the RIGHT to mandate that lifestyle [traditional marriage] as the only option available to every person in this country, especially when those same people are denied benefits or status because they choose NOT to follow that lifestyle."

Can a sane, self sufficient, otherwise law abiding polygamist not make that EXACT argument? You are forcing your version of morality on he. And you are consenting your government to regulate that morality by force, if necessary. So why is it "okay" for the government to regulate morality by defining marriage in number, but not "okay" to "regulate morality" by defining marriage in gender - when both are between consenting adults not injuring a third or underage party and in complete control of their mental faculties?

And let me be as blunt as possible - in my opinion you either must concede that sane, functioning, consenting adults have the right to plural marriage (not to mention that a court certified sane person has the right to suicide in order to end a painful disease/condition) or you must concede that the government has just as much right to regulate marriage by gender as it does by number. It is completely inconsistent for you to to say that my advocation is based solely on "morality" and thus it is unjustifiable for the government to foist it on my fellow, consenting adult Americans that are injuring no one else, but then state it is justifiable for you to turn right around and do the exact same thing in the two scenarios I just mentioned.