Marriage historically means a man and woman.

The problem is that the government got involved.

How many married men and women will go without their tax benefits to have the separation that there was always meant to be?

There is a difference between a legal union (protected by the Constitution regardless of chromosomes) and religious marriage which is between a man and a woman (protected by the Constitution as per the freedom of religion).

Right, but that should be decided by your church. HOWEVER.

The reason the government is involved is specifically because there are certain tax and insurance implications if you are married.

It doesn't suss out for same-sex marriages though. The reason married people get tax breaks is the assumption that those married people will go on to create future taxpayers. No, not every marriage. You will get your couples that can't or choose not to have kids, but statistically, they will, and that's what the government is counting on.

Same sex couples do not create future taxpayers. They sometimes adopt, but that's not the same, because those kids already exist. The numbers of same sex couples that go on to have a sperm donor or surrogate mothers, whose babies will then go on to be future taxpayers themselves are likely to be so small they are statistically insignificant.

SO I do agree that marriage should be a legal definition, but it should be a legal and religious definition. For all the others, they should have their civil unions and avoid the whole rigamarole.

If they want to find their heathen fake ass church to call them "married" as a mockery of God, that's also, unfortunately covered by the First.

I'm conflicted on the whole thing. The Founders, I don't think expected us to let the lunatic fringe take things this far.