excellent article. while i don't agree with everything, i appreciate learning how the marraige license came to be. ty

Excellent work. It is truly refreshing to see someone take the hyper-emotionalism out of a topic which is clearly a political football being played for the purposes of pandering for votes. I've often wondered, given that marriage is one of the seven sacraments, why the rabid "separation of church and state" crowd is so interested in having government define a religious institution. Government has no business defining marriage. It is a topic to be decided between two people, their families, and their clergy.

Everything a president (or politician) does is done for and because of "political spin". Every thing. That is the nature of politics.
It's all about appeasing the majority and worrying about votes- both losing them or gaining them. Well at least that's what it used to be about; the politician 'working for' the majority, more or less... evolving with cultural and societal demands and changes over time. But for the last 20-30 years or so, politicians have gradually but steadily forgotten who they 'work for' and have taken up the cause *only* for corporations and the 1%-ers. This is the biggest issue now with many people who are unhappy with the way things are today in politics.
As for the government's involvement in "marriage" issues, perhaps it would be best for ALL people wishing to partner themselves with another human being, be they elderly widowed sisters, elderly sister and brother, males, females, sexual partners or non-sexual partners -- * any combination * of 2 consenting adults -- to form a "civil union" recognized by government for the purpose of all legalities that will entail, and leave it at that.
Leave "Marriage" strictly to the religious institutions and their respective congregation to work out and decide according to their own religious dogma. Being religiously paired should have no bearing either way on legal Civil Unions.
Perhaps that is the way to go. Now.

I disagree to a certain extent.

While the marriage bond was recognized by society long before the legal form came into existence, there is a clear state interest in the recognition of marriage as a legal entity. The implications extend far beyond joint ownership of property, responsibility for children, retention of inheritance rights, and any number of other things. Most importantly, the state has a clear interest in strong marriages, and families that arise from strong marriages, since degradation of the traditional family is the primary cause of poverty and poor parenting outcomes.

Dave - Insofar as your marriage v.license position goes: fair enough. I'm for it. But what to do in the meantime? Maybe you agree that your proposal is unlikely to become policy, or that it is unlikely to become policy anytime soon. By your own thinking, until that happens, there are people being excluded from the functional equivaient (the current form of marriage) of your outcome and they should not be. So, they are being discriminated against.
Hypotheticals have their vital place. But the vital center of this issue is about what is actually happening now. So I wonder if you care to join the growing ranks of your fellow citizens (a small majority now) who favor eliminating the current discriminatory policy (untili your excellent ultimate solution becomes law, whenever that would be)?

Also worth mentioning: Your otherwise fine essay would be greatly improved if you didn't abandon its early balance and weight it heavily against the president while putting no pressure on the clearer villains in this story - the politicians who support and even promote our current discriminatory policy. Why only criticism of the President's likely pandering to a humane position? Doesn't it bother your that tons of other politicians are pandering to bigotry?

People often fail to recognize that marriage is not a contract between two people, but rather a contract between three entities-the two individuals and the State. When people marry and get along the State has little role, a small voice and takes little action. When things go south and divorce enters the picture, the third party in the contract has a lot of power and a lot to say.

While Dave is throwing Obama under the bus for coming out in favor of same sex marriage, how can he not add that Dick Chaney came out a few years ago for same sex marriage (even though his party opposes it vehemently) because he has a daughter who is a lesbian and in a committed relationship. Now - did he come out with his changed decision because of politics or because he sees that his own daughter is entitled to the same rights as everyone else with regard to marriage? And I am sure it personally hurts him that she is not given the same rights as everyone else because she is gay. When these issues hit home, people (even vile people like Dick Chaney) see how very unfair it is that same sex couples do not have equal rights.