Okay, well let's try this. I'll summarise the arguments against the Supreme Court decision here. Tell me where I've gone wrong.
1. Most societies prohibit gay marriage
2. The dictionary adopts this prohibition in its definition of marriage
3. Procreation - only relationships that could result in biological children of the married deserve legal protection
4. There is no discrimination against gays to remedy because they could choose to enter straight marriages
5. There is no legal difference between marriage and some fancy contract
Therefore: banning gay marriage is fine and the Supreme Court got it wrong.
It looks to me like every single one of those points has been addressed explicitly and directly here.
If you replace the word "explicitly" with "superficially", I'll agree 100%.
Further, you did not answer Balog's question. You answered with a result, not a reason.
That's like me asking you why you shot the deer and you respond with "so the deer would be shot". He asked
why the government has chosen to acknowledge certain relationships and why, by extension, the government should now include homosexual relationships with that reasoning.
The laws around marriage have grown up for at least hundreds of years (I'm limiting this to English Common Law, although I could argue for thousands) within the common law and legislation for a relationship between a man and a woman. Now, with the grafting of homosexual relationships to this ancient institution, we now have laws applying to people for whom the organic growth did not apply.
We've done as my quote from Mr. Chesterton warned: who cares why these laws exist. I say they are unfair because they only existed because of DISCRIMINATION!11!!!1eleventy!
Also, bravo, you've gotten me answering your questions as though you are arguing in good faith. That takes some doing- excellent change in tactics.