The solution

Remember:  It's not about taking sides.  It's about tolerance.  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.   1) Remove the discrimination and favoritism inherent in the structure of the tax code.  Our tax code sucks anyway.  Scrap it and start over with something that actually makes sense and is not discriminatory.   2) All partnerships should be viewed as civil unions by the government.  Whether the ceremony is performed by a minister, a priest, or a civil servant is none of the government's business.  The government paperwork should say the same thing, regardless. 3) Create a standard set of elections that can be chosen (or opted out of) at the time of union.  These should include granting spouse/partner next of kin rights in medical emergencies, recognizing spouse/partner rights for access to spouse benefits such as insurance, inheritance, etc, ... Please feel free to weigh in on each of these points. We will examine the pros and cons of each in detail.

Family law ramifications

Another area that becomes problematic is the case of family law.  Everything from child custody to making long term healthcare decisions for a partner are dictated by legal precedents both in statutory form and case law.  Same sex, devoted partners in decades long relationships have no authority to act on each other's behalf in these cases unless they have powers of attorney written for each specific circumstance.  In some of these cases, even with proper documentation, their decisions are overridden and their fates are turned over to blood relatives.   The problem with creating state and national laws of this nature is that it puts government mandated  constraints and laws in place that have no constitutional basis.   Our laws are clear on the separation of church and state.  The government, whether federal or state, has no business creating legislature governing religious practices, except in cases where religious practices interfere with the individual liberties of others (forced polygamy in minors, human sacrifice, etc).  My marriage, recognized by the state and federal  government or not, is as real as any other marriage.  I just happen to be straight, so my marriage is protected under the law.  But since when is it the governments right to decide whether a religious marriage is valid or not?  In some cases, in fact, the state government recognizes marriages that some churches won't recognize.  For instance, the catholic church has very explicit guidelines with regard to marriage.  Will the catholic church be forced to recognize a marriage in their church between two divorcees that committed adultery because the state decided it was an acceptable union?   Christian groups that are fighting to define marriage between a man and a woman as a law fail to see the repercussions of this move.  What happens when they are no longer in the majority and the voters come out en masse to repeal the legislation or further define what marriage is in addition to being a man and a woman?  What's to stop voters from imposing additional constraints:  you must be a registered voter, you must be a homeowner, you must have a certain salary and a minimum net worth.  The list of possibilities goes on. Defining marriage, heterosexual, homosexual, same or mixed race, establishes a very, very dangerous precedent.  

Government mandates in family benefits versus private sector benefits

If we are heading toward a government run healthcare system, the federal government has more of a reason to try and prevent same sex unions (which is going to cost more money to them if they are required to offer spouses healthcare).  Private insurers, on the other hand, would (and do still to some degree) have the ability to court businesses by offering to cover same sex unions.  Companies that would pay the premium for this type of insurance would attract talent.  And some companies have already figured this out.  This is the free market at work.   Levi's, American Apparel, Nike, Boeing, Microsoft, Apple, American Airlines, Google, Starbucks and IBM are just some of the companies recognized recently for offering benefits to same sex partners in the workplace.  This is the market at work.  Offering benefits in a non-discriminatory capacity to workers attracts talent. The companies profit from their policies. However, if it's left to the government to decide, you never know what you'll get.  You may have voters deciding whether you qualify for government healthcare as a gay/lesbian spouse much like they are deciding now whether you can even enter into such a union.

Setting aside personal opinions

So here we are again, mixing religion and government.  I am personally a Christian.  How do I feel about gay marriage?  Well, as a US citizen, that shouldn't matter.  Let me explain why.  Our country was set up so that my religious beliefs should never interfere with any other individual's rights.  I am married.  I was married before a Christian pastor.  Had the government not recognized my marriage, I honestly would not care.  My husband and I exchanged vows in the presence of our Lord.  The gay and lesbian community has the option to do the same thing, but depending on where they live, the government may not recognize their marriage (or civil union) which should be nothing more than an exchange of vows between two individuals.   Laws that define marriage: No one has any business deciding what kind of relationship two consenting adults can have in this nation of ours.  Pure and simple.  Period.  Americans seem to forget our history and that we have been in this place before.  The "racial integrity act of 1924" (a Virginia law) made it illegal for whites and non-whites to marry, in addition to requiring the designation of white or non white to be listed on every birth certificate.   It was not overturned by the US supreme court until 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.  30 of 48 states had similar legislation enacted during the same time period.  Though federal legislation was introduced several times none ever passed.   Fifty years ago it was considered an abomination for people of different races to marry.  Is this argument any different? A bigger question:  why does the government care about the outcome of this issue? Where the problem lies is in the structure of our government, our legal and tax systems based upon marital status.  The discrimination built into our system of government is detestable.  Couples, as recognized by the government, are taxed differently than individuals, or even those with children.  Why is it that a single man is taxed at a higher rate than a married couple?  Is that not discrimination?  Why is the government creating incentives for entry into a union in which it should have no interest?  Why are there tax breaks for citizens that have children?  Does the government have the authority to encourage its citizens to have children that they may or may not be able to raise financially and emotionally?  Should single, childless tax payers be punished for NOT having youngsters in their homes or marrying?  This is discrimination of the worst kind.  It is institutionally sponsored discrimination.  That covers only discrimination as it applies to tax law.  The bottom line, however, is that changing the definition of civil unions or marriages changes cost for the government.  Tax  Revenue from two single men to the federal and state government is generally greater than if they were to file as a couple, is it not?  What about federal or state employees who are in same sex relationships?  Would their partners be entitled  to healthcare, survivor benefits, etc if they were allowed to marry?