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"

I realize Habeas corpus is very complex thing to understand.  Doesn't invalidate the point, that someone's attempt to make something simpler in the way they think it should, will often in effect, make things more complex.  As long as things are equal, I don't really care, but they chose the most simple and obvious solution.

You idea isn’t the first time anyone has suggested that.  It just seems to be coming from a non practical ideal that require significantly more work than a simple act of removing a bias that is not substantiated even in the most basic analysis required by civil law.

Rhode Island has made a simple and positive effect in it’s state’s civil code to remove gender bias regarding civil marriage rights by enacting Marriage Equality. Problem solved, marriages are to begin in August.

I understand Habeas corpus very well, nowhere in the 800 year old tradition of habeas corpus; however, with the exception of special circumstances have certain groups been given special priveleges inherent to one's positive right to habeas corpus. The special priveleges are excess to habeaus corpus. Furthermore, inequality still exists. Married couples still have individual priveleges that unmarried couples do not have, and further, single people do not enjoy these priveleges either. It's not egalitarian, albeit I do commend the push for "more" fairness and equality, but ultimately a separation of marriage and government would give more to more people, including but not solely exclusive to gays. If you are to argue that single or unmarried people can get married to have these special priveleges then the same can be said about gays being married to women to gain special priveleges. All people should be treated equally under the law, regardless of their status in society. Hence, my position is more than a gay rights position, but a individual rights one which includes gay marriage individual rights as a subset. 

I understand Habeas corpus very well, nowhere in the 800 year old tradition of habeas corpus; however, with the exception of special circumstances have certain groups been given special priveleges inherent to one's positive right to habeas corpus. The special priveleges are excess to habeaus corpus. Furthermore, inequality still exists. Married couples still have individual priveleges that unmarried couples do not have, and further, single people do not enjoy these priveleges either. It's not egalitarian, albeit I do commend the push for "more" fairness and equality, but ultimately a separation of marriage and government would give more to more people, including but not solely exclusive to gays. If you are to argue that single or unmarried people can get married to have these special priveleges then the same can be said about gays being married to women to gain special priveleges. All people should be treated equally under the law, regardless of their status in society. Hence, my position is more than a gay rights position, but a individual rights one which includes gay marriage individual rights as a subset. 

no, if religion for example says "it's wrong", then there will be people who enforce it, with or without government involvement

in the past (even nowadays) families/tribes often enforced it themselves

to have the liberty to marry whom you want to marry (consenting adults ofcourse) government has to be involved and say it's ok to do so

goverment cant force the churches..... but they can implement a law. not all people get married in the churches BTW..... yes a church is not required to get married.... the government does it too... so if the government would not be involve what would happen? people are now only gonna get married by the churches... and that would also trample LAWS....

tax law, property law, health law, insurance law, etc etc..........

so yes the government needs to be involve...

PS I have seen so many opposite sex couples say, ‘Marriage is stupid? Why do I need a piece of paper saying I love someone?’  Until they see their tax, inheritance, insurance, social security, or others such things that effect their quality of life.  Then they go get married.

You are completely off topic.  If you want talk about the difference in unmarriared vs married rights that is a separate thing all together.  You are free not to get married - you are not forced to do that at all.  But if you chose to marry someone, your ability to do that should not be effected by the person's gender.

But denying certain couples rights and given them to others mealy because of the gender of the two people involved is what is solved by Marriage Equality - i.e. equal options to marry a person regardless of their gender.

Just in the same way the state can not withhold someone’s right to vote because of their gender.

PS I have seen so many opposite sex couples say, ‘Marriage is stupid? Why do I need a piece of paper saying I love someone?’  Until they see their tax, inheritance, insurance, social security, or others such things that effect their quality of life.  Then they go get married.

PPS Really?  Did I just read that?  Because if you looked back at 800 years old tradition of habeas corpus it is often giving certain people rights over others (men, land owners, kings, priest, lawyers, etc.)  That's one of the reason the USA broke away from England.

if the government won't be involved do you think church would let gay people get married???????????????????????????????????????????????

no