Here is a clue - if the gay activists wanted govt 'out of the way' they *wouldnt* be taking these things to court and demanding NEW LAWS and NEW COURT RULINGS! So the simpler answer is this - get them out of the court.
The gay-marriage cases I've seen don't have anything to do with new laws; rather, they've fallen into a couple different categories:
1) Gay couples wanting to get civil recognition of their marriages, but the state not allowing it. The gays sue, since many marriage laws heretofore didn't define what marriages would be recorded, or because they contend the current definition is unconstitutionally discriminatory.
2) States passing "defense of marriage" laws that specifically write gay marriage out of the equation. Gays & civil liberties groups sue, claiming that they're being illegally discriminated against.
The ability to be married without Govt recognition exists - today!
Most of the gays (activists and others) who I've seen/heard talk about this issue claim that what they want are the automatic legal benefits of marriage - inheritance, property rights, control over the other's medical care, etc. Right now, they have to contend with legal paperwork to get anywhere, which costs a helluva lot more than just getting hitched at the courthouse, and has the added disadvantage of being subject to challenge by one party's family if they're feeling spiteful.
I have yet to be convinced that civil recognition of some form of legal partnership for homosexuals will have any real impact on heterosexual marriage, except in the minds of its opponents. BTW, your comparison w/ common law marraige fails - even common law marriage confers rights upon a spouse that gays do not automatically receive.
Snidely