There's flip-flopping in progress...el Presidente, who was for "traditional marriage" yesterday, isn't for it today.
Look, if you want to declare your love for another person ot even another member of another species, fine. If you want to share your fortune with that person/whatever, fine.
"Marriage" is specifically defined as a union of two humans, of opposite sex, of other appropriate pre-requisites, as approved by the State, and that's where the rub is, that "approved by the State" part. Since the Forefathers could never have forseen the mainstreaming of homosexuality as a cultural norm, we have to forgive them for being so obtuse about what marriage is and isn't.
It's time to update the law to the cultural norm, though. Here's the Rivrdog solution:
Congress needs to send out an Amendment to the US Constitution that wipes the word and meaning of "marriage" off of all law books, substitutes the word and meaning for "union" in it's place, and leaves the definition of unions between peoples up to Congress. This removes religion from the question entirely.
In the Forefather's day, religion had a place in the moral lives of every American citizen, and the religious definition of marriage was perfectly acceptable. Since Federal courts have given their imprimatur to "civil unions", there is no more place in our culture for a religious definition of them to be the law of the land.
You see, Campers, we have this little clause prohibiting "establishment" of religion into law. There is no better definition of "establishment" than accepting the religious definition of Marriage instead of our constitutional Court definition.
Establishment of religion has it's place, and that place is in our hearts and minds, not our books of Law.