Separation of Church and State
The US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and an 1802 letter By Thomas Jefferson is considered the origin of the phrase "separation of church and state" which has been quoted in many US Supreme Court decisions as well as text books and other forms of media. With that said, The concept of marriage is a social construct that long pre-dates government and most certainly is an institution of the church. I propose that, like most all other "problems", the solution to defending marriage is to remove the federal government from the process.

Marriage currently has no exact legal meaning, however many courts have tried to give a meaning to the term. I ask why? Why is the federal government, or even the state government, in the business of performing marriages when it is a church institution? Consider the amount of tax money you and I pay, be it to a mayor's salary, a judge's salary, a county clerk who accepts a marriage application, a judge who hears a divorce case and the amount of money that the state charges for applications to be married, or divorced. Then consider that the only reason that the state is involved is in order to create a legal and financial association between two people so that if they separate their property can be equally (or unequally) divided and if either should commit some crime, the other can be forced to pay for damages. There is no benefit to you and I, the tax payer, to have the government involved in our religious rituals and the First Amendment establishes that Congress shall have no such power.

So what about "our" property?
I own a house with my girlfriend. Both of our names appear on the mortgage and title and both of us are legally responsible for payment of the house. We also own equal shares of the house and property and should we ever separate, the simple math is 1 value of property divided by 2 people equals 50% of the value. Rather simple math, so why do we pay judges to hear cases of separation? In addition, I had an acquaintance from my former gym who was charged with a capital crime in October of 2005. I had another acquaintance who filed for divorce, from a marriage that was performed in a church, in December of 2006. The person who filed for divorce over a year after the other was charged with a crime had four court appearances and was then officially divorced by April of 2007. The other person is still awaiting his trial by a jury of his peers. My point? Our tax dollars are being spent to settle religious matters rather than matters of the state, and the federal government, through the "Defense of Marriage Act" and other similar acts, is perpetuating the wasteful spending of our tax money in order to intervene in religious matters.

I am not against marriage although I personally have made the choice to not be married. If the religious institute has its own set of rules that only allow marriage to be only between a man and woman, then such a religion has the right, according the Constitution, to make such rules. If a religious institute has a set of laws that only permits same-sex marriages, then again, such a religion is also protected by our Constitution. It is not within the power of the federal government, nor is it the responsibility of we the tax payers, to regulate religions. If two people seek to be married by a religious institution, they are permitted. If two people seek to have their finances and properties joined, then loan applications and titles all seem to have a line for "co-signer", which effectively unites responsibility among individuals.

But if I'm not married, how does my spouse get health insurance?
Great point. On the contrary, I ask, you pay for health insurance either individually or through a health plan at work, why can't you add anyone you want to your policy and pay for them as well? Surely you all pay for car insurance and surely the car insurance company will allow (and in fact wants) anyone and everyone in your household to be covered by their company on a single policy. So why does health insurance differ? Why can't you as the consumer negotiate freely with the health insurance company for the rate(s) to add anyone living in your household to your health insurance policy? Maybe your employer won't pay any percentage of coverage for additional people, but again, why can't you, as the applicant to some position in a company, negotiate such a benefit with your employer? If I am to believe that we can not be discriminated against based on our religion, then why do health insurance, or any other industries, even ask if we're married? Why do rates change depending on your marriage status? Why is someone, whose beliefs are agnostic, discriminated against while those who performed some religious ceremony can be rewarded? Is there a benefit for Catholics who have performed their first catholic communion? Is there a benefit for Jewish practitioners who have performed their Bar, Bat or Bas Mitzvah? Not that I know of, so why is there a benefit, backed by the federal government and our tax dollars, for those who have been religiously joined in matrimony?

Separate church and state, and defend the religious celebration of Marriage from the politicians who seek to be involved in your religious beliefs and leech money from we tax payers in order to pay their own religious agendas.