>Marriage in the civil sense is a state established contract. There is nothing "family" about it. It is a legal status. The state must have a compelling reason to deny this to a class of individuals and I don't think that case can be made without resorting to arguments that are based on religion and tribal custom.
>
>This is not about trying to join a private club, this is about being denied the use of a state created contract while still being required to pay for the state.
>
>All issues of "marriage" that involve church or tribe are outside of this discussion. I am talking strictly about being "married" with the automatic provisions for taxation, inheritance, common-property, medical decisions etc. This is not the request for a special privilege but questioning the state's right to deny some citizens something available to other citizens without a compelling reason.

And a key point is that there are privileges conferred with marriage that are not available even through private contract. One obvious group are the various federal tax differences, including the exemption in inheritance (3 million now, I think?).

Tamar