Yes, the civil and legal ramifications are important:

- my inheritance: my spouse can get my SS income when I die, my wife inherits my goods by default, etc. Now gays get the same treatment.

- taxes: are different for married and non-married folks. Now gays get the same treatment.

IOW "follow the money".

This ruling will change how much money the government pays to its citizens and how money is passed among its citizens (after marriage and death in particular). But nobody ever discussed the ramifications of this and the entire discussion was based around a bunch of bombast.

So we're not simply "changing the name".

Also visitation rights in hospitals, for example on death bed. Co-parenting rights and many more.

"Now gays get the same treatment."

Actually now ANY TWO people can get the same treatment. Two straight males can get married. If I was single and I had a friend with good benefits, I'd make a case to get married... The savings on insurance and taxes we'd share. Now if millions did this, the cost of those benefits will go up drastically.

How is this any different to a male and female friend better married just for tax benefit? Its not widespread now, why would it become widespread when people of the same sex can do it?

I would say social taboos prevented it from happening between more often between platonic men and women more so in the past.

Feel free. And realise the massive financial risks you are taking by being legally tied to someone. Especially someone who does not have the same kind of emotional bond to you as a genuine spouse hopefully would.

Have you seen this on HN yet?: http://www.jefftk.com/p/how-to-get-a-massive-discount-on-col...

Get married to a platonic roommate with a prenup. Risky some what, but with prenups and no fault divorce the risk is greatly diminished.

The access to finding another human to join incomes and assets for tax planning purposes has doubled.

A prenup is insufficient unless you're also in a legal environment where a spouse can not financially make both of you jointly and severally liable for a debt, for example.

It doesn't help you if the other party doesn't get any of your stuff in a divorce if you're still saddled with debts they took on while you were married.

There may be places where this is possible, but I doubt it'd be worth it once you factor in the cost of sufficiently safeguarding yourself, unless there are massive amounts of money involved.

What stopped you from marrying a female friend back when you were single?

Nothing. Except I tended to hang out with and lived mostly other straight men. I'd probably have been able to convince one to do prenup and marry for strictly platonic income and tax planning reasons. See comment above or below related to prenups and no fault divorces.

I think our wires got crossed here. I'm arguing against the idea that we should change the name to civil unions and make it legal, as opposed to just legalizing equal "marriage".

I certainly don't care what it's called, as long as there's something that confers those rights.

That said, I do object to the oft-stated remark that marriage has historically been a civil rather than religious institution, primarily because historically that's been a distinction without a difference. Such remarks tend to take a separation of church and state for granted when, in reality, both those things were very frequently conflated until maybe the last few centuries, and even then it was a very gradual shift in practice.

Hell, church and state are still one and the same in much of the modern world (see also: significant portions of the Middle East, the United Kingdom, various others). Implying that this was any less prevalent historically is, well, silly.

Can you support that claim? I always thought it was rooted in religion, and the practice dates back to a time when every person and thing was religious since we really knew no better, as far as I'm aware.

It doesn't really matter what it has historically been. What matters is what it should be.