Historically, marriage is not a federal issue. Washington is starting to become involved because some state courts are declaring this to be acceptible and actions by one state on these matters are supposed to be respected by others states i.e. a marriage made in Mass. is valid in Fla.
Secondly, the debate is not really about a "ban" on gay marriage, it's about allowing two members of the same gender to be allowed to get a marriage license.
Now, what is the purpose of a marriage license?
Historically, the primary reason society via government has gotten involved in marriage is to protect women. It is not in the interest of society for a man to impregnate a woman then leave her to raise the child without help, which has historically happened.
So this is why we have marriage license and marriage laws and why married people get certain benefits, and those who aren't married don't complain because married people are generally inclined to raise families which is a burden and without which there is no future.
Now, you can make a case that this could apply to two women, although who's the dad and who's the mom must be considered. What if both want to have babies? It certainly isn't fair for the rest of us to be forced with the burden of subsidizing them.
And there is no case to be made for marriage benefits to apply to a relationship between two men. The case against it is that it an unfair burden for the rest of us.
Steve should not be allowed access to Brad's health care plan just because they like each other.
Excellent post and excellent point. In other words, the institution of marriage required the teeth of governmental enforcement to counter the prodigal tendencies of the human male. The mere disapproval of society and church were not sufficient.