For me, it boils down to the fact that we as a society grant or deny rights and privileges based on whom we place in category Married vs. !Married. As long as t

For me, it boils down to the fact that we as a society grant or deny rights and privileges based on whom we place in category Married vs. !Married. As long as that category includes unrestricted hospital visitation, financial/insurance benefits, etc. then we have no business legislating it, and saying "Persons X and Y (and, hell, Z, Q and P) who truly love each other and consent to marriage are denied these things because they don't meet our definition of what marriage means" strikes me as no different than "Person X is denied the right to vote because their skin color is not the one we associate with sound mind and ability to vote." I'm sure there are a number of institutions that any group wouldn't consider marriage, and that's up to each individual to decide. But as soon as the state and institutions tangled marriage with equal treatment, they set themselves up for this struggle and have to address the inevitable inequity. Anyhow, I realize you probably agree with this. My point is that the individual lines we draw aren't relevant when people's lives, health and financial livelihood hinge on whether or not society determines them married. This is a civil rights issue, nothing less, and it's hard to see support for an anti-gay-marriage organization as anything less than funding an organization that fights against equality. I wonder how we'd feel if the donation was instead for, say, a proposition that would bring back some aspects of Separate but Equal, and how the rhetoric would change.