Really? Please explain how.
The government is defining social behavior and rewarding those who engage in it. (A.K.A. Social Engineering) Now so-called Free Republic "Conservatives" are dead set against Gay Marriage because it is "Social Engineering" yet will threaten life and limb to defend their idea of social engineering.
Sorry but the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to stop the government from doing such. And any attempt no matter how good it sounds should be shunned with every fiber of our being!
When you surrender private control to the Government on who marries who then you are heading down the slippery slope at full speed. Let the Church and individuals decide who marries who and let the government issue limited legal status to such standard unions for the sake of dependents and allow others who wish to seek legal protections of dependents without the sanction of standard marriage the same but call it something different (so as not to stigmatize Church approved unions) and do away with all financial goodies based on marriage that are handed out by the government and the issue of gay marriage dies a quiet death.
Problem solved and no ones rights are violated in any way shape or form.
It should be self evident but I'll explain.
Marriage is the time old tradition of the union of a man and a woman and the creation of a family unit. A mortgage, a contract between a lender and a borrower, is the time old tradition of buying property and creating a home.
Whether or not a duly elected government chooses to encourage either marriages or mortgages by the tax code does not change the meaning of what a marriage or a mortgage is.
Neither marriage nor mortgage law in the USA discriminates against anybody. Any man or any woman satisfying their states requirements for marrying or acquiring a mortgage is free to do so. Whether that state encourages same by their tax codes is secondary to the matter of entering into either a marriage or a mortgage. Choosing not to enter into either is not discrimination de facto or de jure.
Is the explanation satisfactory? If it's not please tell me who is being discriminated against and how.
If you think the founding fathers would have been a-okay with the normalization of homosexuality you're out of your mind. Every colony and then state had anti-sodomy laws and everyone was perfectly fine with such laws, and they were not considered unconstituional until a few faggots conspired to get them overturned via leftists at the SCOTUS. Thomas Jefferson, enlightened gentleman that he was, tried to get the Virginia laws against sodomy mandate mere castration and banishment instead of the death penalty. I think his lukewarm punishment didn't pass at the time, though.