It being called marriage barely matters at all, legally speaking. It's that it's government recognized. It shouldn't have been, but it was. And it being government recognized means that the government rules that control how marriage works and who can be married have to obey the constitution, whether or not that's traditional or according to a certain religion.
No, it's not.
If marriage is
definitionally a committed relationship between a man and a woman, then there is no discrimination for not 'allowing' homosexuals to marriage,
because by the definition of the word it is not possible.
'Civil union' laws were pushed for in some states, and that has a foot to stand on, but claiming this is discriminatory and violates the constitution?
That's basically claiming that not letting an ATV into a dog sled race is discrimination. By definition, it is a
dog sled race, and it doesn't matter what you call the ATV, it's neither a dog nor a sled.
This fight has
always been about trying to force the culture at large to change to fit the whims of the political left and their chosen activists. If it had just been about equality, they could have/would have just kept pushing civil unions, but they didn't, and the way that they've tried (and all too often succeeded) in ramming this into churches as well tells you plenty about it as well.
And if you want to argue 'but just because your religion defines a marriage as inherently heterosexual, doesn't mean other people have to agree!' (which is silly because it isn't just Christianity that uses this definition) then we get into one of the more profound aspects of the conflict.
Who gets to define words?
Because as soon as you let someone start doing that, you are opening the gateway to them having
total power, because they can and will start to redefine
any and every word they want to suit their wants and whims.
The left has been making a habit out of this; just look at how they've redefined racism, intolerance, pedophile, fascist, man, woman, I
could go on.