Legislating personal decisions with respect to the unhealthiness of such choices is taking away liberty. We need no more nanny state mentality. The simple approach and the correct one is to keep the state out of religious matters altogether. Marriage is a holy sacrament and as such is an establishment of religion which pre-existed our government.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Stop the discrimination against single people, NOW!
Why am I penalized for not having a partner?
Why should anyone reap benefits from buggering some other?
Imagine a world where our parents said that and never had kids! Eventually, everyone should make a small effort to reproduce, since that gift was given to us and ought to be passd on.
I do agree with you philosophically, however. It is a "couples-thing" to distrust and debase anyone outside of their own little cult. But singles do it too...
In this case, elected officials have rightly asserted that marriage between a man and woman is an institution that is clearly in the interest of the people and, thus deserves to be protected. The court system, though still deeply infected with liberal toxins, will eventually affirm the legitimacy of hetero-marriage protections, when it gets to the Roberts-Thomas-Scalia-and soon to be Alito, dominated Supreme Court.
The issue is behavior and what behavior is deemed harmful to the people. Also, the issue is this: does the Constitution permit the people to make laws against behavior that is harmful. The answer is yes. Liberals cleverly twist the issue into a human rights or a church/state issue in order to leverage power over the people via their liberal dupes in the judiciary; judges who base their decisions upon liberal ideology and not the Constitution of the United States.
That liberty is costing me a bundle. My company decided to recognize "domestic partners" and extend health insurance benefits. Now the employees get to subsidize enormously expensive HIV cocktail treatments for the HIV/AIDS infected homosexuals that have been admitted to company healthcare programs. That's not the kind of liberty I want, but that is a driving motivation for "gay" marriage. Follow the money. The intent is exploitation.
A fictitious partner to gain financial gain is created by a Government directive and in the long run loses revenue for the government and loses revenue for the population for it is inherent in creating a political skimming of finances.
Political motivation is the only gainful scenario by such a penalty.