Well, let's take inheritance for example. There is a case in front of SCOTUS that's being argued about estate taxes next week. Perhaps you've heard of the Windsor case. Let me give you some background.<quoted text>
but you do admit that much of what gays complain about (inheritance, medical issues, etc)can be remedied with some cheap forms or an attorney, right?
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer lived together as a couple for over 40 years. They built a life together and amassed a large fortune.
The couple were very competent administrators of their own affairs, but there is no way that any lawyer--not even one like you--could help Ms Windsor avoid estate taxes when Spyer died.
Evidently, courts consider this matter to be significant, even if you try to trivialize it. SCOTUS has decided that it is not trivial, which makes you legally incorrect. The dollars are actually not the most important piece of the puzzle [based on the amount of taxes due, it's easy to calculate that Windsor still inherited several million dollars], but the courts are willing to deal with it because it is concrete.
Which brings us right back to the other silliness you've been carrying on with for a couple of weeks: While marriage is much more than dollars and cents and rights and responsibilities, that's what the law deals with. There is nothing the law can do to assure that people respect or enjoy the emotional and cultural advantages of marriage.