I really don't see what there is here to get upset about.
The way I understand the article, this is just affecting insurance companies that offer health benefits.
They can set their premiums to whatever makes sense for them financially. They'll probably make more money from this... However, I suspect that many of the companies were probably already offering these benefits.
I guess one could have a moral opposition to the idea of allowing for these benefits... But I'm not seeing where you'd have a leg to stand on if it doesn't effect others in any way. I really don't suspect premiums for everyone would go up just because an insurance company gets new customers...
...now, if there were a law saying that insurance companies couldn't take into account sexual orientation when setting the premiums (I'm assuming there might be some more medical risks there), then, that would be an issue.
Uh, if they'd be making more money by doing this, then they'd already be doing it. It's safe to assume that it's going to cost them money, which will be passed on to their (normal) customers.
It doesn't matter how much money. The homosexual lobby is out to establish the principle that they can just demand whatever they want in order to subsidize their "lifestyle".
I'm not upset about homosexual couples getting benefits. I could care less what the company decides on its own to do.
What irks me is the government DICTATING to companies what they will do.