By the comment, "will it make a difference" I was referring to our form of government. The entire theory of our Constitution turns on the principle of consent of the governed. That's why our first president understood that religion and morality were the pillars of government, because they were essential to the self-government principle.
As John Adams said, our constitution was written only for a moral and religious people. He said it was wholly inadequate for any other type of people. Winthrop said that men will be controlled by a power within them or by a power without them. That's what I meant by "will it make a difference." If the people of a state (a majority) who value morality and immorality equally are to also retain a republican form of government, then their laws will necessarily reflect those values. At the point a majority wants to be ruled as though pleasure is the greatest human value, you either introduce authoritarian government or you let them degrade themselves as they wish -- in which case the resulting chaos will eventually lead to the need for authoritarian gov't.
So back to marriage....the federal gov't has an interest in its definition because it affects benefits and taxes. We can demand a uniform definition on that basis.
Since the Supreme Court began mandating secularism as the state religion, we have been heading for a collapse of this nature. Few see the threat from within -- human nature itself. Our Founders understood that freedom must be self-ordered by morality steming from religious conviction. That's why religion got a double protection in the Bill of Rights. Too bad it's been redefined.
They handed us a republic if we could keep it. I'm not too optimistic at this point. But keeping it a republic is the most vital principle. Second, we need to re-establish a respect for morality in the hearts of the people themselves.
I looked up his words, which were: "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."
President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage
I suppose the nit I am picking is "how" and the degree to which the institution of marriage is protected. Bush's statement certainly admits states to make legal arrangements other than marriage, and in my mind, that, on its own, results in something less than "fully protecting marriage." But that's just me.
Our Founders understood that freedom must be self-ordered by morality steming from religious conviction.
You and I see rather eye-to-eye on that. Law, on its own, will not sustain a society. Law is an important pillar, but reliance on law alone (be it Constitution, statute, regulation or common law), to provide social stability, will not endure. Blackstone's writings express this pretty well, but the point is lost on many (if not most) citizens.
Tucker's Blackstone <-- Link (check Section II for his general premise)
So back to marriage....the federal gov't has an interest in its definition because it affects benefits and taxes. We can demand a uniform definition on that basis.
Yes, the Federal government has an interest, and yes, we can define marriage for the purposes of federal benefits and federal taxes. But society includes the next generation, and normalizing homosexuality will impact "our" children, and theirs.