A large part of the problem is that nobody has a comprehensive idea of what it means to be “married”. It’s assumed in so many existing arrangements, contracts, pensions, laws….and it’s unknown exactly where these things should change if the underlying “married” changes definition.
As an example, what happens to pensions that continue to the death of a surviving spouse? If a large number of homosexual women couples were to enter such arrangements, the actuarial assumptions regarding future benefits would be seriously mistaken. This might cause the pension to be drastically underfunded, cutting into the rights of those already in the plan.
Just on the basis of the unfairness of retroactive application, gay marriage should not be enacted by judicial fiat. Even if it should come to pass, there needs to be a great deal of thought given to transition issues.
