"Marriage" is hardly just a word. Take away all the government-granted benefits, and married people will still be married. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can't distinguish between marriage and government benefits must have a pretty crappy marriage.
My point is that by getting the court to impose either 'marriage' or what would be marriage in all but name, the Left/gay lobby won a big victory. To characterize this decision as anything else is disingenuous, especially for conservatives. Even those conservatives who support civil unions should at least agree that there is no constitutional basis to demand them, and that the Courts have no role in the matter. If conservatives can't at least agree with that, then they need to examine if they really are conservatives, because only a thorougly leftist idea -- the Living Constitution method of interpretation -- can allow one to arrive at the opposing position.
The question is not about what makes a marriage important, but rather about who has the legitimate authority to define marriage for society's public purposes.