The institution of marriage has existed for centuries, way earlier than the US, therefor it cannot possibly be a state based convention.

marriage was once defined as the holy matrimony between a man and women, but marriage is becoming less regarded as a religious concept and with gay marriage, soon gender plays no role at all. im hoping that it doesnt play a role now.

marriage helps prevent polygamy and create more stable families.
im pretty sure that having a happy, (preferably) middle class stable family is the best pillar for growing a society based on industry and consumerism

marriage also allows for 2 incomes to join together as a net income and marriage is probably one of the reasons why couples can take out mortgages and banks can ensure that their combined income is more stable then a "fling".

marriage is important to society, since government has a part in running society then they would obviously stick their noses into the issue of marriage.

Who are we to say Homosexuals cannot get married? What gives us so much control over their own lives?

Presumably the answer to that question would be.. "The government."

Exactly, the government should not presume to have so much control over their lives. And ours. And everyones. The government is basically sayiing "no, you can't be happy, but we expect you to pay taxes"

So, can we now expect Jonathan Rauch to back away from same-sex marriage, now that the rationale he gave in the New York Times no longer works? Of course not. Because the marriage equality movement is not about getting happiness, or hospital visitation rights, or property inheritance rights, or any of the other “benefits” LGBT people are always talking about. If it were, we could probably work out a compromise that respects marriage while relieving the distress of same-sex couples. But the marriage equality movement is about boosting the self-esteem of gay men and lesbians, many of whom had a tough time growing up. And I’d be happy to stroke LGBT egos if the route under discussion wasn’t doing tremendous harm to a central institution in our society.

But “marriage equality” advocates don’t want that. They’re afraid their ideas about the supposed federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage won’t be convincing enough. So they have done everything possible to stop well-qualified jurists like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Roberts from ever being able to referee this dispute. They’ve chosen instead to go the state-by-state route, so that when they finally impose their definition of marriage on the whole nation, we’ll be so used to it we’ll barely notice.

When Christopher Hammer and Arthur Smelt, a gay couple from Orange County, California, filed a federal lawsuit to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and declare a federal constitutional right to marry, several LGBT groups including Equality California and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund asked the liberal Ninth Circuit to throw out the gay couple’s case.

Jennifer C. Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, was candid about her group’s reasoning: “Our carefully considered view is that it’s important to be taking steps in the jurisdictions where we can succeed and have a series of successes … before calling the ultimate question for the entire country.”

Who elected Jennifer Pizer queen lesbian? The LGBT movement is profoundly undemocratic. Many groups focused on equality like NOW and the NAACP elect their leaders. But overwhelmingly gay and lesbian groups appoint their leaders, and those appointments generally go to two types of people: major donors, and “affirmative action” slots for categories like transgender people and people of color. When I belonged to the Human Rights Campaign Fund in the early 1990s, every member did get to vote for the board of directors - but there was usually exactly one candidate for each board position! If Pizer’s group wants to pursue state cases, that’s fine. But blocking the federal claim of a loving gay couple is unacceptable.

Hammer has his own theory why organizations supposedly there to help him would stab him in the back instead: “If we win, that sinks all their fundraising - and that destroys all their cases because we’d all be equal in the law across the United States…. they don’t want us to win.”

The couple’s attorney, Richard C. Gilbert, said “Our case can’t hurt state cases because state cases are decided under state constitutions…. What other group has said don’t fight, we’ll lose? Even if you lose you can make progress with an issue. Would Lambda Legal had said to Dred Scott, ‘Mr. Scott, you’re a slave, so don’t sue because you’re going to lose?’”