Glad you posted this, Dan. All my best wishes to Marcoux and Eugene. LOVE IS LOVE!

Sheesh, Eric and Eugene. I loved the name Marcoux when I first read this.

Freedom of religion needs to go both ways. When conservative churches object to SSM, I tell them that my religious freedom has been oppressed because my church was not allowed to perform same sex marriages, as is our belief.

At our church, we have performed two same sex marriages since they became legal, and they were both moving and beautiful. AND, the world continued to turn, the church was not hit by lightning, and day continued to follow night.

Nobody has the right to force their own beliefs onto anyone else. I know that many people here on Slog would call me delusional just for having faith. I have no problems with that. They have just as much right to not believe, as I have to believe. Live and let live people.

@3,

Therein lies your problem. Conservative churches don't believe in freedom of religion. From their point of view, only their religion and their beliefs deserve to be recognized by the state; ergo, they will oppose anything that subverts that.

The Medicaid issue is a tough one. Medicaid is available to some low-income and handicapped people, depending upon their personal resources. In most states, marriage means that most of your assets and income are melded, and each partner's "legal" income and assets partakes of the other partner's income and assets. You'd have to change that situation, rather than the Medicaid requirements.

The same groups advocating for mandatory public prayer in schools are suing states for having Ashtanga Yoga in the school because "SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE"

It's a weird and hypocritical world we live in.

It's kind of ironic: I remember when (about 20 years ago) same-sex couples could have religious, though not civil, civilly recognized, or legally-binding "commitment ceremonies." Not all religions performed or endorsed them, of course. But they were the only option that existed. I went to a couple and they were beautiful and affirming.

Then the push for civil and recognized marriage came, and now people who are civilly married are reassuring religions that no one is going to make them perform marriages.

And there's something definitely depressing about a lawyer advising his older, financially insecure clients to divorce or not to marry once they finally achieve that long-struggled-for right. If I recall, there was an old "All in the Family" episode about two older people who were living together "in sin," and when Archie disapproved, it was explained that because of the way Medicaid was set up, they couldn't afford to get married. Some things haven't changed much.

Oh wait, it wasn't medicaid, it was Social Security.

@10 a trust fund is a fantastic way to achieve the same goal while still determining how the money will be spent.

I concur. If the pro-family and pro-marriage groups were really what they claimed to be, they'd care more about these hardship-based barriers to staying married than about homosexuality. If anything, more people who want to be married and take it seriously are a good thing for traditional marriage.

@5 No - you could also change the medicaid requirement to vary depending on marital status. Or better yet, just give everyone health care like the rest of the developed world.