Lance Re: gay marriage
 
One more thought on this.  I read an article in the State Journal about state-licensed marriage some time ago.  It's not so long ago that there was no such thing as a marriage license.  People wanted to get married, so they just did.
 
Legal marriage, according to that article, isn't an arrangement between two people - it's an arrangement between each of those two people, individually, and the state.  We've codified marriage to make things like divorce and inheritance easier to handle.
 
If two homosexuals want to get married, they can: mail announcements, buy dresses (and/or rent tuxes), have a big ceremony and reception (there are churches and clergy who will perform the ceremony, if that's what the happy couple wants), wear the rings, go on a honeymoon, call each other husband and/or wife, even adopt children.
 
Inheritance, end-of-life arrangements, and so forth can be handled through powers of attorney.  Yes, those can be challenged, but that's true of heterosexual marriages, too, even with the state involved.
 
The only thing a homosexual couple can't have right now, that I can in my marriage, is the government benefits - the tax breaks, the employer benefits (although those are increasingly being offered to gay couples).
 
Gay activists say it's not about the money - great.  Then what's the problem? 
 
I think the next argument is: our relationship should be recognized, like heterosexual relationships.
 
Well, okay.  If you say so.  But I think needing government approval in order to be happy indicates either a deeper problem, or a more complex agenda than simple "fairness."