Excellent article, Jack! I would argue though, that it should call the situation what it is: not simply the "cost" of being gay, but the "penalty", or "tax" as it were.

While there are many circumstances that might make the worst-case scenario far worse indeed, there are two important ones worth noting: The first is if the couple's children could not be covered under the higher-earner's plan at work because they were not biologically or legally related, a not uncommon situation. The second, albeit less frequent but potentially devastating financially, is the penalty for being the disabled child of gay parents if prevented from collecting on a parent's Social Security. Innocent children should not be penalized for legal discrimination against their gay parents.