We've talked about that already. Every marriage costs the state something, and some cost it more with tax benefits. Judiciary costs are significant, as well. Can you imagine adding the bureaucratic burden of same-sex relationships, which will have no (non-artificially acquired) children associated with them? But the most important element of the 'investment' is the blessing that overtly comes from the state with the issue of every marriage license: we greet this couple with (possibly minimal) fanfare and encouragement.
Note that in the license to marry box, the statement goes:
Authorization and license is hereby given to any person duly authorized by the laws of the State of California to perform a marriage ceremony within the State of California to solemnize the marriage of the above named persons.Note that Californians have limited who is authorized to marry its citizens. We have limited who can perform marriages, and when. One stipulation is that those deputized by the state of California to marry citizens must be able to determine the legal qualifications of these marriages. In fact, Californians have voted to disallow same sex couples from using these documents and receiving these ceremonies! Would you use the US Supreme Court's power to overwhelm the authority of the good people of the state of California in this case? Apparently the entire United States of America is populated by citizens who by a majority, prefer to think of marriage as being between a man and a woman. To redefine the term as "anybody who wants to live together for a while" is a gross violation of their right to interpret their own language and culture without the interference of some unprincipled judicial system.
On a related note, in these licenses, we talk about "the bonds of matrimony," which is a word derived through Middle English, from Old French matrimoine, and from the Lation matrimonnium and mater, meaning mother. Explain to me how the state would have ever expected two men can become "mothers?"
In this sense, all taxation is taxation without representation.
False at the outset. Do you think that if at one point, Americans believed that their tax burden were clearly excessive, that it would be fair to tax them at or above the rate that they felt were reasonable? I'll remind you of the stamp act and the Boston Teaparty and so absolutely not. Every April 15th we grumble, but we recognize the fairness of what we are doing when we pay the government, by and large. As soon as that changes, we will have crossed over a line of tyrannical taxation. Furthermore, if there were one department or practice the government were conducting that the majority of Americans felt was immoral, yet it were costing each of them something, would it be moral to require them to pay for it? Absolutely not.
I won't [tell your children that the state approves.].
You don't understand. The state is issuing licenses to these people. The children will learn the "new" definition of marriage from this very fact. Libraries will have books that are rewritten to explain the new notion of marriage. Our schools will have to teach the new definition of marriage. I think you are grossly underestimating the sweeping nature of this change, and how seriously most Americans are opposed to it, and how violated their right to have a say in continuing to express a shared definition of marriage is. It will require a tremendous amount of of tyrannical force to require that every civic context in which marriage is defined will now from this historic moment henceforth define marriage as "anybody who wants to live together."
Why is it okay with you that the law be used to teach my children (or Step's children) that the state approves only of Christian-sanctioned marriages?
We've talked about this already on this thread, haven't we? Some laws have Christian and Judaic content. There is something in common between the laws of nature and the Christian view of marriage, isn't there? Surely you will not deny that nature requires a fertile woman and a fertile man to bear children. The very word 'matrimony' is derived from motherhood, and as hard as you've tried to deny it, marriage is the central underpinning of the family unit in western civilization. If you personally want to teach your children that nature doesn't matter, and that either evolution or most religious views of matrimony and family organization are wrong, then you're welcome to do so. But it is highly irregular to require the state to do so. It's downright absurd.
Why do you think it will be harder to explain to your children that 'Bob and Steve are married' than it is to explain that 'Bob and Steve live together in a committed same-sex relationship but they're not married'?
That's easy. Bob and Steve didn't ask me via the land of California's representatives for a certificate of our collective approval for this ostensibly 'committed' relationship that is irrelevant to me, irrelevant to my family, and irrelevant to the future of my country. They're just another pair of people, doing whatever they want, without my interest or involvement. Because you hold a minority view of morality does not mean that you can enforce your minority view of morality on others. It's simple tyranny to engage the power of the state to help you do so.
I'm free to tell my children whatever I want to at that point, but they'll never ask me "If it's wrong, then why is it possible to get legal approval?" You can tell your children that those evil fellow Americans of yours do not see thousands of years of marriage tradition any differently than they did last week.