An interesting (gay) marriage argument

The last sentence of the following article really intrigued me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/fashion/21kids.html?pagewanted=2

Abigail Garner, 37, whose blog, Families Like Mine and 2004 book of the same title addressed the voices of children from same-sex families, is also wary. “If we are seeing marriage as a way to access health care, where does that leave people who are currently unemployed or who are single?” she asked. “We need to look at things marriage gives people and ask why that is conditional on being a couple.”

I am wholeheartedly for gay marriage, but even from the get-go, I was a little bothered by the talk of access to services that was denied domestic partners, because to me, if that were the crux of it, civil unions should have solved it long ago. Homosexual individuals wishing to marry are in general seeking the same level of recognition of their union and their bond as heterosexuals. Yes, visitation rights limited to "family only" at hospitals would be opened up to them. That is an important right and stems from recognition of the family unit. But what's going on with all these health benefits?

This comes down to ideas and laws that date waaaay back, back to the ages when marriage was seen as a union resulting in the formation of "one" individual to be represented primarily by the male. While that has now changed, at least in the eyes of the law, such that both spouses are equal representatives of this entity that is the couple or the "super-being," it is still the case that whatever is contributed by the individuals of the marriage will be reaped by both. This is de facto the case for many unmarried couples and de facto not the case for many married couples. Do we then as a society still put a premium on people able and willing to make a commitment on paper? Is marriage then legally nothing more than a contract? Or does it protect the investments of one individual as he/she makes sacrifices for the other?