[Waychel]

I'm not even black and I'm somewhat offended by how many comparisons are being made here between the issue of homosexual marriage and the civil rights movement. Anyone who knows their history (or even their law) knows this to be a gross comparison of events. Homosexuals are hardly being denied their "rights" as citizens IMO.

Homosexuals are able to open up joint bank accounts; both individuals simply need to walk into the bank together. If anything, a business account can be setup that both "spouses" draw from. Homosexuals can also form a living trust with their spouses relating to all issues of property, assets and healthcare management in the event of one another's incapacitation or death. Infact, homosexuals that are with living trusts are better off in the event of their death than married heterosexuals without.

All that homosexuals are being denied in the end are tax and social security benefits. These are not "rights" of marriage, but priveledges. If homosexual, polygamist and similar marriages were to become federally recognized, then these priveledges would likely dissapear altogether, making the point moot in the first place.

Personally, I find all of this humorous considering that most marriage law was created in consideration to gender exclusively. To give one example, the issue of alimony came about because of the conventional role most women played as a dependant in marriage. I don't know how many times I must repeat this, but marriage as recognized by law essentially comes down to being about law; the considerations of which are impacted by issues of circumstance as much as gender.