I found this earlier today on Andrew Sullivan and I am still amazed: Annie Leibovitz took out a loan against her life's work to pay off her mortgage debt, not because she made poor economic decisions, but because she needs to pay up to 50% of what she inherited from her long time partner, Susan Sontag.
Meg's first response was, "Holy Sh!t... it is almost not fair that they were together as they are too talented." (As Meg's just pointed out, I am paraphrasing her as this sounds like something I would say, not her.) And, that is true.
Yet, this certainly is a profound argument as to why marriage equality needs to be granted for same-sex couples. Without protection, there will not be economic freedom and economic advancement for couples. Certainly individuals could still live alone; however, without protection, it is not rational to be in a same-sex couple. This perpetuates the problem: why would anyone want to be in a same-sex couple? In fact, it could be a major detriment to be in a same-sex couple. Instead, economically speaking, it would be much more viable to the financial benefit of the individual to remain single, which may perpetuate the of the promiscuous life-style.