[fwdude]

Marriage ought to be the province of and defined by religion; civil contracts could be entered into by any willing parties.

Then, how are things like Social Security survivor benefits and inheritance issues to be determined if the state can't recognize any such relationship?

[ClearCase_guy]

The marriage issue is an excellent example of how Fiscal Conservatism is the same thing as Social Conservatism.

If marriage becomes "anything goes" and if I can have 17 wives and some of my wives can also have multiple husbands, then things get messy. I don't think my insurance company could figure it out. I don't think my employer will offer me a family benefit package. I don't think the government will let me declare that many dependents on my taxes.

So, if marriage becomes "anything goes" then a lot of simple things that people expect to have will have to be jettisoned. A simple couple (man and woman) won't get a tax deduction, won't get a benefits package from an employer, and won't get reasonable insurance coverage -- but, hey, homosexual marriage isn't hurting them, right?

[DuncanWaring]

Then, how are things like Social Security survivor benefits ...

End Social Security. That's something that needs to be done with or without "gay marriage".

Ultimately, that's what "gay marriage" is all about - using the government to fleece your fellow citizens for your benefit. That, and legitimizing depravity.

...and inheritance issues ...

Find a lawyer and write a Will. That option has been available for centuries.

[theBuckwheat]

“Then, how are things like Social Security survivor benefits and inheritance issues to be determined if the state can’t recognize any such relationship? “

A delightful question. The answer is that the State Law states that people are free to file a declaration that could be in the form of a Will, but if the person dies in testate (”The condition of dying without leaving a will.”) then the State definition controls the disposition of the estate.

This allows people the liberty to fully control their assets. The issue for same-sex marriage is that inheritance laws have not kept pace with changes in marriage law. So a person could be “married” to a (same-sex) person in a state where such marriage is legal and if the “couple” moves to a state that does not recognize SSM, and one of the two dies, the surviving “whatever” could find they would not be an heir of the other person.

[IncPen]

how are things like Social Security survivor benefits and inheritance issues to be determined if the state can't recognize any such relationship?

Any such recognition can be recognized via civil contract. This is not about equality, it is about control.