[Hoot Gibson]

If government doesn't have the right to define marriages, how can they define that married people get tax breaks? Are they leaving out a class of people that by your words have decided that they aren't showing good behavior? They state of New York defined marriage, and gay marriage was legal, But DOMA didn't recognize it. Therefore, if gays married in states that made it legal, it was still illegal as far as tax breaks were concerned. Who is defining "good behavior"?

Most governments have recognized marriage to be a "good" thing for thousands of years. Studies have shown that children who are the product of the marriage between a man and a woman thrive in our society, in contrast to those who are born to unmarried couples and raised in single parent households. That, and providing an orderly system of inheritance of property from parents to their offspring are probably the two most compelling arguments for governments to encourage men and women to marry before having children.

You obviously disagree that the government's support of traditional marriage over other relationships is a "good" thing, but the facts are the facts.

If you give the matter just a little bit of thought, then you will realize that the government grants tax incentives to people and corporations (which are little different than people in the eyes of the law) for behaving in a manner that is believed to be beneficial to society. If the practice was unconstitutional, then the courts would not allow deductions for engaging in any behavior, including buying energy efficient automobiles, investing in gas wells, donating to charities that are deemed worthy, or purchasing a home.

The Supreme Court may ignore historical precedent and issue a ruling or two that will make you a happy man but if it does, it will not be the first mistake that the Court has made.