[Samildanach]

Ahh I finally see where you are coming from I think. The christian community associate marriage purely with Christianity and the definition of it being between a man and a woman. I can understand how that could be due to history etc. But what is to stop someone drawing up parallel legislation for Gay couples and calling it something different? say a 'Garriage' :)
But then there are all those Gay folk who are also Christian folk
hmmmm........and they should in theory be able to practise their religion under the first amendment.....
so thats where the problem lies. ...The religious sector of society can't accept or are intolerant of their gay members?
I think that normally what happens here is something similar to what happened to the protestants and catholics.
A split occurs within the church and both carry on practising what they believe yet still both fall under the banner of Christianity. So it then comes down to a legal battle. The first group that can get marriage defined as either one or the other wins. However there are all kinds of snarls because one of your primary laws of the land is the practice of any religion is protected as something paramount in your law. If one religion says one thing and another sector of it says something entirely different then both would be right as first amendment rights should not be able to be breached in any way shape or form.
So in theory if I was a judge I couldn't make a call about it because I would be denying someones religious rights by doing so. Traditionally marriage has always been between a man and a woman in the past, however religions do change as evidenced by specific sects splitting off. For example would you ask a judge to call the protestant religion more valid than the catholics? Its a very nasty thing to have to sort out. I pity the judge who has to deal with that. Hes in for backlash either way.
EDIT After thinking about it for a while I think the judge would HAVE to allow gay marriage to ensure first amendment priviledges as it is the only way he is not infringing on religious rights. He can either fail it shut denying gay members there right to practice their religion or he can fail it open which conserves first amendment rights for everyone.