Although I agree with you on shrinking the size of the government, we’re talking about permanently redefining marriage in ways that it has never been defined before. We’re talking about changing the entire basis of society. Marriage would no longer pertain to blood ties but revolve around adult feelings. Feelings are subject to change and blood ties are not. We’re saying that children do not necessarily need mothers and fathers. As long as they are loved (self love by adults?), they have everything they need according to this theory. Same sex marriage is radical, untested and far-reaching. Children will be taught in school (and already are in Mass.) do appreciate “diversity” in family life. The family is breaking down and we’re supposed to celebrate it.
Society has always defined marriage and family and will continue to do so regardless of government. By advocating removing government policy from these issues, I’m actually taking a position favorable to social conservatives, but they’re too bent out of shape to recognize it. If you don’t want some activist’s version of marriage to become the governmental definition, you have to accept that your religious-based definition can’t be the governmental definition either.