Too late.
Government wrongly became involved in "marriage."
If you understand the separation of church and state in this country, you need to realize that governmental definition of marriage MUST be completely separate from the Church's definition of "Marriage."
To think anything otherwise is a blatant disregard for equality as I've said multiple times.
Think of it this way:
In some arab countries, the use of the burka is still mandatory, not because of Islamic religion, but because of the cultural roots of nomadic tribes that enforced the idea of male dominance wrongly under the authority of Islam. The burka and the idea of shielding yourself is no more Islamic than the idea of terrorism.
Clinging to a definition of marriage established in times when people with autism were seen as "slow," and when blacks were seen as inhuman savages is equal to clinging to the idea that a woman should be fully covered by a burka.
It's not consciously permissible and it's pretty much abhorrent to think that somehow because government and society used to view something one way that now to repair it we must wait for government to completely remove itself from the practice.
No, that's wrong. Go back to the white room example. In no situation would you vote to make some of the individuals unable to receive benefits. The inclusion of the stipulations you make about the definition of marriage as an archaic cultural tradition would in no way affect your decision.
If it would, then you do not believe in equality or fairness as an overarching principle, and should probably move to Iran where your feelings are more homogeneous with the population.