Except that would be giving in to the culture enforcers who started this problem in the first place. You can't legislate culture, and our Founding Fathers knew that. King Henry the 8th was party to the destruction of over 100 Catholic cathedrals and abbeys in England because he thought that legislating religion was a good way to get a divorce. Our founding fathers knew all about that folly and did very well to avoid it.
The problem we have now is that people want to do exactly that in the opposite direction. They want to legislate their morality by saying that it's immoral to prevent same sex couples from marrying. They widen the definition of human rights to include marriage for anyone. (Well, most of them stop at two people -- they're uncomfortable with allowing eight people to marry for some reason, I'm not sure why -- could it be culture?)
We now have to pass a law that says our government will reflect our culture and will only honor men and women to marry one two person couple at a time. We will not pay federal benefits to anyone but traditional couples. And we will certainly not allow same sex couples to encourage immigration.
It might work if we leave religion out of it. The culture destroyers want to separate culture from state. But they're really guilty of trying to impart their culture into the state -- by force.
We don't have to come down to their level to stop them in their tracks.
Quite the contrary, you can't avoid legislating culture (Can you think of any formidable culture that has no legislation?). Our founding fathers knew that. So they themselves legislated in the best way possible.
King Henry the 8th was party to the destruction of over 100 Catholic cathedrals and abbeys in England because he thought that legislating religion was a good way to get a divorce.
That's called the genetic fallacy in logic. If King Henry the 8th were to advocate private property to only aristocratic citizens it would not follow that private property were wrong. It would only follow that Henry the 8th did not equally apply private property rights.
It might work if we leave religion out of it.
To the contrary. Withdraw God from the equation and you undermine the very basis for any meaningful definition for marriage.