I know that we are generally in agreement, and that you are one of the few who understand my position. My reply to you was simply to emphasize the point. You just happened to be the one involved in the discussion there that emphasis could be presented.<quoted text>
I think I've already made it clear that I understand, and agree, with your premise regarding govt involvement in ALL marriage. I am not inclined to think it will get out of the business of marriage any time too soon. I also would like to point out that the poster appeared to be arguing that allowing same sex marriage would generate a significant financial burden due to the tax breaks a few on here keep referencing. I asked someone, Brian_G IIRC, to come up with a figure showing the significance of the allegation. Nothing yet AFAIK has been mentioned. These tax breaks are typically found when a pair gets together that have incomes of a significant difference. Most of the gay couples I know have comparable incomes. The tax benefits seem miniscule to me. That said, I'm not the one bellowing about the financial damage. Those who claim it will be a burden ought to be able to show their maths.
I wasn't really interested in the financial nonsense that was also in the post which is why I didn't reference them. People interested in "equality" should be screaming from the top of there lungs to end those benefits. I can't think of a more obvious example of inequality exercised through law.
You also mentioned that you don't see the government getting out of the marriage business any time soon. This is true so long as we continue to capitulate, expanding the government's role under the guise of gaining "right's." This is my biggest complaint with the same sex marriage movement, and how the movement has positioned itself and created its narrative. Interesting how an expansion in governmental regulatory control over citizens can be sold as increasing freedom.