Perhaps Maryland's Senators could benefit from a little education on what that Constitution they swore to uphold says? As EqualMeasure posted below, they need to pay attention to Aritle IV, Section 1, otherwise known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause which says that all states must give full faith and credit to the records and acts of the other states.

You might also remind them that the words they are using now are the EXACT same words that were used by their counterparts back in the 60s prior to the Loving v Virginia decision with regards to interracial marriage.

Regardless of all that, it still does not excuse the Federal government from refusing to recognize marriages legally performed in ANY state that has chosen - through whatever means - marriages that are legal. Refusing to acknowledge us and grant us those 1,138+ rights and responsibilities just because someone, somewhere *might* be offended by it is just not good enough.

"Ironically, the same sex couple would pay less in income taxes: about $15,000 to $112,000 less. But that doesn’t outweigh the other costs of being a gay couple."

Sadly, this article oversimplifies this issue, almost to the point of doing us more harm than good.

How many couples do you know in real life where both individuals make the same amount of money? Be honest! I know we don't - not by a long shot!

As a result of this, over the past 12 years, my husband and I have paid, literally, thousands of dollars every year MORE in taxes compared to what a similarly situated opposite-sex couple would in income taxes. Now, since we live in California, we have been lucky to pay less on State taxes even before we were able to legally wed in the State last year because our Domestic Partnership was recognized for tax purposes starting back in 2006, but still we have been paying on average at least 25% more in taxes than we should for a long, long time now. This does not even begin to touch on the issue of taxation on "Domestic Partner" benefits through employers that is tacked on top of everything else, back when I was employed rather than owning my own business.

The article also ignores completely the taxation issues regarding a married small business owners. As it stands right now, married small business owners have unique rights to file their taxes and share the tax burden for a sole proprietorship as a couple - rights that are completely denied to same sex couples thanks to DOMA. DOMA also rears its ugly head with many implications on the business side, such as denying business loans that would be granted to a married couple but are not to a single person, denying credit for single vs joint applications, etc.

Yes, the fight for marriage equality is about civil rights, not financial gain. However, part of being treated equally is NOT having to pay a penalty simply for being who and what you are. As it stands right now, we are paying a very hefty "gay tax" and being legally discriminated against in business - all because we either cannot get married, or our marriages are not being recognized. In the end, it's all about equality, one way or another.

As someone who has been married for almost 11 years, and together faithfully with my husband for more than 12, I find this woman particularly distasteful! In her world, same sex marriage is debauchery, yet Evangelicals in this country have the highest divorce rate of ANY group, religious or secular.

Yet again I have to wonder how it is that people like this keep getting re-elected to office. Do the people in her district really share her draconian views? Or is this a case of an apathetic public who is so lazy that they just don't pay attention to what their candidates stand for or say, or worse yet, don't bother to even vote?