1. Please, let's just remember that no matter what the high court ends up deciding, the state does NOT own marriage; God does. The state does not marry people, at least in God's eyes. Sure, Civil Marriage is a thing, and it is good for things like tax incentives, insurance benefits, and visitation rights in the hospital (more on those things below). But the state's declaration means exactly nothing in God's eyes when it comes to what a marriage actually is. Jesus is so clear in Matthew 19:4-6: "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
Notice two things. a) Male and female are fundamental for Jesus' definition of marriage. If it isn't male and female, it isn't a marriage in God's eyes. Doesn't matter what da dang gubment say! b) God is the one who does the joining. God is the one who marries people. God is the one who produces the bond that cannot be broken by man. NOT THE STATE. God owns marriage, and a court decision will not change that one way or the other.
2. Incidentally, this is exactly why I think churches should get out of the state marriage business altogether. Why in the world do churches think that a pastor must sign the marriage license, as if the license is actually what makes the marriage? It isn't the license, it is the words of the pastor acting as God's authorized agent. When the pastor says, "I now pronounce you man and wife," a new marital reality comes into existence. When the pastor signs the license, he is representing the state, which seems to be an increasingly dangerous thing to do. But if pastors don't represent the state (which they are free to do or not do, BTW)—if they only marry in the eyes of God and then say, "Now go down to the court house like a good citizen and make your marriage legal,"—then there is no state interference and therefore no state imposed mandates. This seems not only to be biblical, but also a wise way for a church to protect itself in the coming years.
3. Speaking of the civil benefits of marriage, the reason that there are tax breaks and insurance benefits and the like is because marriage is a recognized good in society. But why is marriage the only committed relationship that the state recognizes in these ways as beneficial to societal flourishing? It seems to me that many types of deep, committed, mutual relationships are beneficial to society in similar-but-not-identical ways to marriage; whether it is a marriage, a celibate partnership, a committed friendship, or a chosen kinship, all of these bonds have the potential to be sites of sacrificial love, selfless service, and others-oriented hospitality. All of these things are societal goods.
So what if—regardless of the label one puts on the relationship—two people who have chosen a life of celibacy decide to commit to serve and support and do life with one another? Shouldn't they be able to visit each other in the hospital? If they can decide to have a joint bank account, why shouldn't they be able to have joint health insurance benefits? Why is their relationship not worthy of the types of societal privileges that marriage affords? I understand that these perks were put in place to encourage marriage in the first place. But I want to say, "Let's encourage deep, committed, service-oriented relationships in many forms!"
4. Because those rights are at the moment reserved for marriage, isn't it easier to understand at least some of the motivation for the legalization of gay marriage? I understand what it is like to not have visitation rights or joint insurance, and I also understand why gay people want those things. So if the state will continue to refuse those goods to other types of relationships (which I don't think it should), then even if we disagree with gay "marriage", lets be quick to understand what is at stake. It isn't only competing moralities and conflicting ideologies and religious freedom and all that. It is those things. But it's more also. It's being able to visit your dying partner in the ICU. It's being able to list the person you love as inheritor of your estate. It's being able to file taxes with the person you are doing life with. Right now, marriage is the only way those things are possible. I am not advocating for wholesale support of gay marriage. Don't hear me saying that! (see point 1 above). But I am saying that maybe lets be slow to throw stones at those "radical gays" who are pushing for civil benefits for their commitment to one another. I would like those same benefits, TBH...so I get it.