[Tribune7]

I didn't ask what the state benefits where. I asked what the secular benefit is.

Why does the state provide people benefits if the marry?

The follow up questions of course are "why should a non-married person agree to this extra burden and why should he or she tolerate it?"

There is an answer which should be obvious.

[Tribune7]

For those to whom it is not obvious, the secular purpose of marriage is solely to provide protection to mothers and children. Two abled-bodied men have no reason getting any special state benefits regardless of what there living arrangments are.

[strictconstruct]

Secular benefit? I personally see this as a comfort/protection issue. There certainly is political gain and legitimacy that comes with the right to marry. The idea that my relationship with my partner is treated by the government equally to all other relationships is fulfilling in that it would eliminate a sense of second-class citizenship. This of course, has little to do with my primary interest, and the one that really matters in the big scheme of things.. the constitutional issue.
Truthfully, if I had my way, the government wouldn't get involved in the marriage/social engineering business at all, straight or gay. Realizing that this isn't going to happen, I advocate equal protection of the law, as guaranteed.