In this weeks' New York Times Magazine, personal finance guru Suze Orman talks lovingly about her seven-year relationship with Kathy Travis, and how angry it makes her that, unless the law changes, when one of them dies, the other will lose 50 percent of her estate to taxes that they would not have to pay if they were married.

While I can think of more noble reasons to support marriage equality, she does have a point.

Given the popularity of her common-sense advice, her books, and her seminars...I wonder, how will middle America respond to the fact that the advice they have been following came from a very chic lesbian?

I had a friend back in Hometown who had to sell the house he shared with his partner of 15 years just to pay the estate taxes. G. left everything to E., who ended up getting about 45 percent of the estate...having to pay both estate taxes and penalties associated with 401K funds being distributed before G turned 65. As I understand it, both of these taxes would have been deferred if E had been considered G's spouse. I ask you, is that fair?

Now, I'm not a person who opposes estate taxes--they are essential to the preservation of our democracy (not my opinion, but the opinion of the father of democracy, John Locke). But it is truly unfair that gay couples, whether married in Boston, Civil Unioned in Vermont or New Jersey, enjoy none of the financial protections federal law gives to married couples.

So you go Suze...maybe you can change a few minds even as you convince all of us to save more and spend less.