You're off the reservation on this one ...

The reason even Obama defines marriage as between one man and one woman is that because across the ethnic and political board 80% of Americans feels the same way. And the conservative movement, not to mention America as a whole, has a vested interest in maintaining it as the pillars of any cohesive society. A marriage begats children, a family, a home, a neighborhood, a city, a state, a nation.

Your point about the cohabitation outside of marriage, procreation outside of marriage etc, etc, is precisely why we need to protect marriage from this final death blow. Licensing, be it driving or marriage is a privilege, not a right. I was subjected to STD tests prior to getting my marriage license, proof of age, etc. It is licensed by the state, protected by the state, treated with preferential treatment by the sate (tax code, hospital visitation, etc) because of the inherent interest in promoting this first and most basic building block of any healthy society.

And just where does it stop if you propose to deregulate the entire affair? Are you prepared to allow plural marriage? How about if a man marries his pet goat so it can avail itself of his health insurance? Where does it stop? And I am quite honestly shocked that you would not see the intrinsic danger in gay marriage for our (or any) society. So many problems within our society can be traced back to the nucleus family not being intact. This will simply increase all of the problems of a dismissive attitude towards marriage in our society that you decry. It will be watered down into nothingness. And based just on pure politics, since you suggested conservatives remove it from their agenda, why would any Party or movement seek to abandon something that polls at 80%? Your entire premise is shockingly shallow and nonsensical.

Let me put it this way - there is no Constitutional right to gay marriage. Even justice Kennedy (perhaps the most liberal justice on the court currently) has said so in a previous related judgement. It doesn't exist. I should add that the central issue in this challenge will be a Constitutional question surrounding California's ability to amend its' state Constitution as they see fit. And given there is no express right within the US Constitution to gay marriage, and all other rights not explicitly mentioned are reserved to the state, I believe this case is a slam dunk.

Also, I am quite a bit more optimistic than you. I do not think gay marriage will be a reality sooner rather than later. The trend is in the exact opposite. You will find no more "blue" sate than CA or New Jersey (even with the recent gubernatorial race), and they have both overwhelmingly said "no." This is a desperate Hail Mary pass by gay activists, taking it to the Supreme Court.

And let me just mention - you seem to have quite the Libertarian outlook on marriage, taking it out of the domain of the state all together. Should we allow the various Church's or GLAAD to also determine property disbursement and child custody upon divorce as well? The state would certainly have no say in how a marriage ends if it has no say in how it was joined. I shudder to think how Islam would treat their women in such an event, assuming they would even allow a divorce under any circumstances. And if you extend your Libertarian argument wouldn't you also have to advocate the government removing itself from other forms of private interventions? Under this thought process shouldn't drugs also be legal? Abortion? See Libertarians are fantastic the first 80% of their spiel, but then they run for mayor of crazy town when they get into "and abolish the FBI, CIA & withdraw all troops."

Again, it is odd times in which we live indeed when you are arguing less government and myself more. And I am particularly surprised that you have such a capitulating attitude, "Its going to be a reality anyway so I wont play the game at all, and since I'm a Catholic Im beyond reproach on the subject, so don't bother asking." By that logic shouldn't we abandon the abortion fight as well? Stop playing that game? I find this a ludicrous position from someone who is capable of so much more, and whom should understand the undeniable value to society in the state protecting traditional marriage.