Many/all of these arguments seem to be against gay relationships. While some reference specifically marriage, it really does seem that the only difference between one and the other is that in marriage one gets specific governmental benefits.
Unless the point is that marriage itself is a charged term or concept which should not be changed (which I could sort of see), I really don’t see why this makes a difference at all. If not for the PREVIOUS acceptance of gay relationships, this ruling (as well as all of the previous state laws) would not have passed or even come up, meaning that the likelihood of a gay relationship occurring at all doesn’t seem to be increasing overmuch through the ruling itself. As this whole issue is a societal one in which the legal issue seems to be both minuscule and simply financial benefits, and considering that passing or not passing a law can do NOTHING about this societal issue, I really am not sure I see the nafka mina here.