It will always in the end be a legal thing though. For example, income tax and the definition of filing as married or two singles. Family medical coverage - husband/wife and spouse - still bound to be a legal challenge even if marriage is deemed societal and religious.
I understand, but that is conflating two different things. Because government has chosen to encourage or reward marriage with tax favoritism does not mean that government may allow or not allow marriage. Permitting or not permitting two adults to become married based upon their sex, race, or other immutable characteristics is clearly a violation of their inalienable rights.
In fact, I would argue that such tax favoritism is not equal treatment under the law and unduly burden‘s unmarried persons (or people who rent homes instead of having a mortgage) by having them both finance the education and upbringing of married persons children, and paying higher taxes even as they consume fewer goods, benefits, and services provided by taxation. Like renters subsidizing mortgage deductions.
Government gets away with unconstitutional actions when a majority of people accept and benefit from them, a lesson in ‘democratic’ tyranny.
The right shot itself in the foot with DOMA; it gave government the power to define marriage, subsequently giving them the power to re-define marriage from man and woman to same sex. Further, governments unequal tax favoritism to man woman couples was gas on the fire.
Whereas, if government had never been granted the power to define marriage then gay couples could have been married by any justice of the peace or New Age church pastor. Problem solved.