Well, then, my premise does stand then. I just offered a scenario and asked which was preferable to you?
You are the one that wants to change the law. Either that or you are a supporter of judical activism, well hell let's call it like it is, judicial tyranny.
That means it is incumbent on you to convince me why. I find your argument that the current law permits a straight man to marry a homosexual femal thouroughly unconvincing and I've shown you why.
There is nothing you can say or do that will convince me that judges know best. You may someday cobble together a majority who support homoseaual "marriage" but that day isn't today.
In the meantime you and the judges drive more and more folks toward amending the US Constitution. Keep it up.