So your "I seem to recall reading" is either a blatant lie or premised on the idea of hiring a $500/hour lawyer to set things up for you. Regardless, there are always differences in fees and requirements across various municipalities. Is [State A] violating my rights if their marriage license costs $50 instead of the $35 of [State B]? Is "a slight difference in paperwork costs for different types of relationships" really such a horrific tragedy that you're willing to sacrifice freedom of religion and conscience to it?
I said it that way because I read about it years ago and thus don't have a citation handy for it. I also can't find it right now via various google searches. The problem is that in cases like hospital visitation there are facilities with a history of stonewalling non-relatives, paperwork or not, unless they were rendered 'a relative' by marriage. Now, I know this opens the hospital up for lawsuits, but which would you rather have - visiting your dying loved one, or a lawsuit for being denied said visitation?
Ergo, $500/hour lawyer or not, in some ways the marriage certificate was more powerful than the contracts. Easier certainly, you just need to haul 1 sheet of paper, not dozens. The problem with filling out the free forms is that they're more likely to be challenged than ones drawn up or at least reviewed by a competent lawyer.
As for 'talking points from the DNC', that's outright unfair, as I have nothing to do with them. I've come to my own beliefs by myself, thank you very much. Get onto some different topics and I'm right with you guys.
As for everybody being treated 'equally', I'm going to go right back to racism. Because I see your argument as the same whether you say 'opposite sex' or 'different race'. Equal protection, right? But is it equal protection when Susie can marry John but not Wanda, but John can marry Wanda?
Close relatives marrying - a sticky widget indeed, especially if the 'couple' is an obviously non-reproductive one so you can't argue 'health of the children!'.
I understand that many people think that homosexuality is wrong based on their religious documents. I'll respond that our interpretation of them alters over time. Most Catholics use birth control at some point in their lives despite mandates of their church. The Bible has been used to both condone and condemn slavery. The Koran to variously sentence rapists to death or to stone the woman who was raped.
I'm not arguing that churches be forced to conduct gay marriages. But you should already know that there are various sects of various major religions that are perfectly willing to recognize the marriages, and THAT turns opposing gay marriage into a religious fight. One could say supporting it as well, but how many gays want to get married for the mostly non-religious 'married' part, to include benefits and tax advantages compared with people who oppose it for non-religious purposes?
For the record I support SSM but also support the ability of religions and small businesses* to not support it.
Oh, and my commander is not only gay, but gay married. His spouse enjoys an increasing number of benefits that an opposite sex spouse has traditionally received for decades, but he fulfills the same 'duties'**, so doesn't he deserve the same benefits?
*I handle large corporations different than small family owned businesses with the viewpoint that you can avoid the latter, but the former is much more difficult.
**Key spouse membership, various functions, political stuff.