Where? 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

Doesn't matter that they get some deductions on their taxes, it makes the tax system more complicated, meaning more unjust taxation by the IRS. Married persons shouldn't get special priveleges from government anyway. That's such a silly concept. I want single people equality. 

I already told you the churches will have less control than they do now. You haven't argued nor refuted it. You're just repeating your incessant babble again and again. I mentioned private contracts and you just ignored it like it doesn't exist. 

P.S I'm bisexual, and have no intention of getting married. :P Like I said, I want single people equality with a flat tax. 

Great, a tolerant world is a good world

The federal government wasn't given the power in the constitution, hence it's not their role. That's perfectly believable. To be honest though, states shouldn't be involved either. It is an individual matter, settled by individual decisions and only enforced by the state upon a breach of these contractual decisions. 

There's a problem with this article. Seinfeld isn't gay...not that there's anything wrong with that.

In the country were you have legal residance. 

An example of civil rights that are only available to married couples become huge when you are dealing with inheritance and immigration.

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/83-year-old-widow-sues-for-inclusion-in-spousal-inheritance-tax-exemption-121001?news=845822

Although the debate over marriage equality seems at times to center on the social and emotional costs inflicted on gay couples by the denial of legal recognition of their relationships, 83-year-old widow Edith Windsor can place a precise dollar amount on its cost to her: $363,053. That’s the amount in federal estate tax she had to pay when Thea Spyer, her wife and partner of nearly 50 years, passed away in 2009. Had they been a heterosexual couple, Windsor would have paid nothing.

Windsor and Spyer, a couple from 1963 onward, married in Ontario, Canada, in 2007 at a time when Massachusetts was the only state that recognized same sex marriage. Although federal law exempts spousal inheritances from the estate tax, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law that limits the federal definition of marriage to opposite sex couples, prohibits the federal government from granting gay couples any of the benefits federal law gives to married couples, like the estate tax exemption.

Windsor filed a lawsuit in federal court in her hometown of New York in 2010, alleging that DOMA violates her constitutional right to equal protection of the law and in June federal judge Barbara Jones agreed, following several other cases that have also struck down DOMA.

After the Obama administration announced in February 2011 that it would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA, the Republican House leadership authorized the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (BLAG) to defend the law in court cases around the country. BLAG appealed Windsor’s victory to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, also in New York.

At oral arguments last week, Windsor’s lawyer and an Obama administration attorney urged the appeals court to affirm Judge Jones’s decision and ensure that Windsor enjoys the same spousal benefits as straight widows. Responding to the contention that striking down DOMA would infringe on state rights, Windsor’s attorney Roberta Kaplan argued that the case does not create a “federal right to marry, [and] does not require states to follow the path of New York, Vermont and Connecticut,” which are three of the states that currently recognize marriage equality. Instead, she said, the case would simply compel Congress to respect the evolving definitions of marriage enacted by the states.

Kaplan also compared DOMA to the “odious” anti-miscegenation laws declared unconstitutional by a unanimous Supreme Court in the case of Loving v. Virginia (1967). On the 40th anniversary of that landmark case, plaintiff Mildred Loving stated her support of marriage equality on behalf of herself and her husband Richard, who passed away in 1975.

Paul Clement, a lawyer for BLAG, argued that DOMA is “rational,” and therefore constitutional, because it saves the government money by creating a uniform standard of marriage benefits. “Saving money is a rational basis,” for the law, he contended.

Kaplan replied that the government may not save money by arbitrarily denying federal benefits, “especially when it involves an historically disfavored group,” such as gays and lesbians. She also pointed out that BLAG had not proven that DOMA did or would save money.

After the hearing, Windsor told reporters that “I look forward to the day when the federal government recognizes all marriages.”

-Matt Bewig

I just quoted the whole Fifth Amendment. There's no mention of spousal privelege. In fact, it specifically mentiones "No person" meaning it's not something exclusive to spouses.  

I know it can seem confusing. It's in US Common Law - the practice based on the law.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/40/case.html

Here a US Supreme Court ruling from the 80's that reaffirms this practice in Trammel v. United States - 445 U.S. 40 (1980).

"Information privately disclosed between husband and wife in the confidence of the marital relationship is privileged under the independent rule protecting confidential marital communications, Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 332; and the Hawkins privilege, which sweeps more broadly than any other testimonial privilege, is not limited to confidential communications, but is invoked to also exclude evidence of criminal acts and of communications in the presence of third persons"

Plus discrimination base on gender would also be prohibited in the 14th amendment. It was largely about race, but not mention race even one. See the actual 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Does that help with you question?  What are you trying to say?

This is not relevant to the fifth amendment though. The law you cited is a separate entity which invokes the positive rights secured in the fifth amendment. This means the fifth amendment does not need to be changed one bit, only the federal law. You made the point that the fifth amendment would need to be altered, I asked for clarification. 

" You would need to change over 15,000 Federal laws and statues – including the 5th amendment"