How are they bogus? A ‘right’ that is automatically conferred to a hetersexual couple required extraordinary effort for a couple that is forbidden to marry. That is the fact, simple and uncut.
The cost and effort required to obtain the Power of Attourney and the Will, is a cost that is not shared with a married couple.
Substitute any other minority you like, for the word ‘heterosexual’. We can use Jewish, Christian, Black, Dutch - whatever. One group is excluded from the legal protection afforded another group.
I think we both agree that we wish this problem would just go away - that the hands of time would turn back to when this was truly considered a perversion, which it is. However, we are now forced into a position of ‘damage control’. Some states now recognize gay marriage, I see this as a bad thing. When you use the word ‘marriage’; certain other religous connotations follow. How long before your church is sued, if they fail to allow a gay marriage to take place?
Consider, our churches have tax exempt status. One could argue that by virute of being tax exempt, they are supported by the taxpayer. Hence, if the taxpayer supports them, they must provide services to everyone. Do you see where this is going?
There is no legal discrimination here. A gay man is just as free to marry a woman as a straight man is, so attempts to tie this back to historical miscegenation laws are incorrect. But if we redefine marriage to say a man can "marry" another man, why stop there? Why can't he "marry" his mother? Or several people? Or his dog? What legal or moral theory would be used to deny these other "rights"?