But once the government chooses a side as in the case of marriage (monetary goodies for being a man and a woman who marry) it opens up the equal protection clause. As far as I am concerned morally you are right but Legally the Constitution sez you are wrong. This is why the Government should not be involved in promoting marriage of any type. It should provide the same legal coverage as any contract between two or more people and allow for safe dispensation of underage children as regards to custody.
But I fear we can never undo the damage done by what was probably an honest attempt to help American Families. As I've said before this should be a lesson to us all on the law of unintended consequences stemming from Government meddling where it shouldn't.
There are areas where government is tasked by the people with enforcing laws premised upon protecting unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. With unalienable rights there come necessarily unalienable definitions of terms -necessarily as well, defined by the Creator. What I suggest we see here is a government redefining the unalienable term "marriage" as a method for promoting and protecting the innovation. In my opinion, government is overstepping and taking the role of God in this pursuit...
In essence the unalienable redefined becomes alienable -with this we see government moving toward tyrant...