After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the liberal pundits predictably cheered the ruling. With few exceptions, such pundits were very consistent (see here, here, here, here, here, and the Huffington Post, which dedicated a whole page) in one particular and notable aspect of this issue: it was "gay marriage" and not "same-sex marriage."

Apparently it has escaped many liberals that, when one redefines marriage to include man/man and woman/woman unions, homosexuality never has to enter into the picture.  Of course, for liberals, this is really all about homosexuality.  As I have noted before, marriage is just the means to a more sinister end for the homosexual movement.  This is about sex and about legitimizing, through the American judicial system, a sexual lifestyle many Americans find immoral.

This is also about vengeance.  Once the homosexual movement has the full protection of the law behind it (which it pretty much does now in about a dozen states), institutions with moral or religious objections to homosexual behavior will be attacked -- not just with protests, but with the full legal force of the state.  Churches, schools, hospitals, businesses, and the like will be targeted.  Of course, in the liberal-led states where homosexuality has obtained significant legal protection, this is already occurring.

Individuals who speak out against homosexuality will also be accused, and perhaps fined or arrested, for engaging in "hate speech."  This also is already occurring in other parts of the world where liberalism is more entrenched.

Liberals have become so consumed with forcing the legitimization of homosexual behavior down the throats (sorry!) of the American people that they have become blind to the unintended consequences of their legal actions.  Let me provide you with a delicious scenario: legalized "same-sex" marriage -- which is what we really have -- renders useless the federal estate tax.

Under current federal tax law, an individual can leave any amount of money to a spouse without generating estate tax.  Thus, a small business owner or a farmer, wealthy or not, can "marry" a "partner" for no other reason than simply to avoid having his estate taxed (further) by the federal government.

What's more, once the redefining of marriage is taken to its logical conclusion -- unless, of course, the left wants to "discriminate" and limit the definition of "marriage" -- and polygamous and incestuous relationships are given the legal protection of marriage, then a wealthy small business owner or farmer, nearing the end of his life, will be able to "marry" his son or daughter (no matter if either party is already married) for no other reason than to avoid paying additional federal taxes.  Thank you, Justice Kennedy!

For conservatives, and other Americans still capable of actually feeling shame, there will be no shame or stigma in participating in such marriages, because the relationships will have absolutely nothing to do with sex and are all about "love" (loving to stick it to the feds, that is), and "love is love," right?

For liberals, whether such relationships are sexual should have no bearing.  What protest can a true liberal raise against any kind of sexual relationship between consenting adults?  Upon what moral standard would he rely?  After all, we would not want to "demean" a couple whose "moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects."

Also, there would be no violation of God's law, either, because as anyone who truthfully understands Scripture knows, marriage can exist only as union of one man and one woman.  Thus, all that would be occurring is taking legal advantage of the folly produced by liberal logic.  I suppose liberals could always change their "marriage" laws and require that same-sex "marriages" occur only with those actually engaging in homosexual activity, but that would require the government to enter the bedroom, and we know liberals don't want that!  (How wickedly ironic would that be?  We go from laws against sodomy to those requiring it!)

Of course, liberals would howl at conservatives "marrying" simply to reduce their tax burden, but the law says nothing about such relationships being sexual.  As Fred Kopp noted in American Thinker nearly two years ago, "[w]hen applying for a marriage license, there is no box to check, no oath to take, no questions about a person's sexual proclivity.  Ironically, the very heart of the 'gay marriage' movement -- homosexuality -- gets nary a mention on the marriage application."

Also, near countless number of times, liberals have gone out of their way to make the case that it matters not whether a marital relationship is capable of producing children, so, again, surely it would matter not whether a marital relationship had anything to do with sex at all.

Therefore, two widowed sisters (one with children and one without) could "marry" so that the estate of the childless widow could be passed on the children of the other with a significantly reduced tax burden.

When multiples are allowed to marry -- and make no mistake about it: polygamists celebrated the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA as well -- these scenarios become even more crazy and complicated.  No matter, though -- the legal logic stands.

In fact, homosexuals are already taking similar "crazy" steps in states where same-sex marriage is not recognized.  As this column was being written, a link appeared on Drudge to an ABC news piece about a homosexual man (65 years old) who adopted his partner (73 years old) to avoid paying Pennsylvania's inheritance tax.

That's a perversion (something with which most liberals have no problem) of adoption, no doubt, but evidently legal, nonetheless.  Thus, if gays can adopt to game the system, then straights can "marry" to do the same.

Trevor Grant Thomas: At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason. www.trevorgrantthomas.com