My religious friends here probably know I'm an atheist. They regard their marrages as between themselves, their spouses, and their God. On the other hand, if I were to marry my lady (she's not in any big rush, and neither am I, but that's besides the point) it would be just between the two of us. We sure wouldn't impose ourselves on any church, and even though she's culturally Catholic, we absolutely wouldn't expect a RCC to marry us, as I've been divorced.
I think I'm on pretty solid ground when I say that none of my fellow Freepers would have the slightest objection to the two of us marrying, even though we have zero chance of using a marriage as a vehicle for raising a family (we're both in our early 50's), and our union would be purely a civil arrangement.
What is the fundamental difference between what we would have, and what homosexuals already have in four states? Before you delve into what I call the "ick" factor, take into account that my lady and I met on a website for larger folks, and we are both heftier people. That's plenty of "ick" for a lot of straight people!
Because the larger society has a role to play as well. While you ‘think’ children are not possible, they could happen. Further, by accepting marriage as it is and has been for thousands of years, children remain a key element to the larger societal question and children are our future. The demographic collapse that has already begun in secularized societies that have aborted, contracepted and sodomized themselves free of the ‘burden of children’ is going to be enormously destructive to our way of life and opens the doors for the tribes of Islam. This isn’t about you, your girlfriend, your boyfriend if you want one or your dog/goat/turtle/etc - it is a matter of national survival.
Here's the difference, whether you're religious or not: a union between a man and a woman is designed for the bearing and raising of children, whether or not that actually happens in every case. Moreover, almost every union has the potential for producing children. Plenty of women who thought they were post-menopausal have suddenly found themselves a happy mother made - and the early 50s, even the mid-50's, ain't out of the woods yet, believe me! (I'm 54). And I personally know two couples who tried everything to get pregnant (including in vitro), were told they were unable to conceive, adopted a child, and then suddenly turned up pregnant.
Even if you don't believe in the religious aspect, marriage between a man and a woman is socially, potentially, and ontologically different from a necessarily barren homosexual relationship.
P.S. . . . annulments are not that difficult (or expensive) to obtain, depending on circumstances.
I believe that the government has an obligation to support marriage (as traditionally defined) because there is a public interest in promoting committed mother/father relationships for the best environment in which to raise children. There is no comparable public interest in other types of relationships. Therefore, I would disagree with Robinson’s premise that religions are “forcing” the state not to recognize same sex “marriages” because I think privileging civil traditional marriage can be justified on secular grounds. As for allowing religious groups to perform civil marriages, I believe that is simply a convenience and a matter of respect for the free exercise of religion rather than hostility to religion.