There are always situations outside the ideal. But if we are obligated to equate everything, then you are essentially saying that marriage cannot exist under the constitution. If it exists even as it does in Massachusetts, it leaves some people -- poeple with children -- out. The point of marriage (who knew a 5,000 year old institution was going to need such vigorous defense) is to encourage the ideal. The gov't has an interest because where parents fail, gov't steps in. It is perfectly logical and just for gov't to recognize and define a family according to how nature defines a family.
I'm all for it. I use my wife's situation as an example. Her mother lives with us, and her daughter is going off to college, out of state, this fall. If I (or any other man) had not come along, my wife and her mother would be the sole members of the household. Why shouldn't they be able to inherit from each other, tax-free? Why shouldn't they be able to make medical decisions for each other in case of disability? Why shouldn't the survivor have the right to make burial arrangements for the other?
But if we are obligated to equate everything, then you are essentially saying that marriage cannot exist under the constitution.
Marriage is not a Constitutional institution. Civil marriage is a state-sanctioned institution, with state rules. Even the IRS follows state rules on marriage, with regard to who is married, and what property is separate and what is community property for tax purposes.
It is perfectly logical and just for gov't to recognize and define a family according to how nature defines a family.
I guess the difference between some of us in dealing with the question of "who is a family?" involves whether or not we want to examine people's genitals first.