The benefit of procreating is in the child tax credits that we receive for having two kids, the medical deduction for all their trips to the dctor, and the extra deductions for the little dependant angels. So, the gay couple would not get any of those benefits, unless they adopted one of those non-aborted babies in the orphanage.

• Liberal administrations tend to make it more expensive to be married. Conservative administrations tend to make marriage less expensive. Here is a little blurb I found somewhere: — UB
• Tax law changes beginning in 2003 have helped ease the marriage tax penalty. The standard deduction that joint filers can claim is now twice that allowed single taxpayers. And the amount of a couple’s income that falls in the 15 percent bracket is double the income range of a single filer. In essence, these changes tax more of a couple’s joint income as if they each were filing as single taxpayers.

To set up the legal contracts you’ve mentioned above costs money. In essence, it’s an economic burden on homosexuals who want some of the same non-tax-break protections as heterosexuals: “Sure you can have the right to make medical decisions for your unconscious partner in the hospital, just pay your legal fees to set up the power of attorney, and don’t forget to bring the documentation with you on your honeymoon or wherever you may happened to travel together, because you’ll need it at 2 a.m. in the emergency room to convince the doctors after you’ve been in a car accident. Oh, and I hope your partner’s parents are on board with the whole ‘gay’ thing, because they could easily contest the validity of the contract in court. Good luck with that!”

• Indeed, a relative of mine was married to a woman who was hospitalized with an aneurism induced coma. Her parents quickly went to court and got custody of her without his knowledge and then excluded him from any contact with her. So marriage is no guarantee that you have priority of control. The courts can do any damned thing they please, marriage or no marriage. — UB
• Yes, if gays can’t get married then their economic burden increases. That’s OK with me. I don’t wish to pay in order to relieve their economic burden. –UB

It looks like your statements might be from a economical viewpoint. If so, AND then suppose that “marriage” only truely has it’s meaning from another, say religious, paradygm; then, wouldn’t “marriage” be meaningless in the economy viewpoint? (Well, perhaps not meaningless. But maybe it shouldn’t be called “marriage” … rather, it might be named a specific set of economic contracts, rights, and obligations)?