Obligatory gay marriage/activist judges post

I am completely ambivalent about gay marriage -- frankly, I just don't really care all that much. (now a gay divorce should be interesting). Protein wisdom's take on the ruling in Iowa, where a judge just declared Iowa's "defense of marriage act" unconstitutional and directed local authorities to issue marriage licenses to some gay couples, is an interesting read for the "con" side. I don't generally like "slippery slope" arguments, but it's a fair point to consider.

Also, doesn't the whole issue of who can marry whom get down to a three-party contractual relationship between the marrying couple and the state? What I mean is that people are free to marry anyone they want, in whatever manner they want, but the marriage itself is not a "marriage" in the sense of a legal, as opposed to emotional, obligation, until such time as the state places its stamp of approval on it? And isn't the proper body for such a stamp the legislative one? And if sexual orientation is not a suspect class, or if marriage is not a "fundamental right," why are courts involved at all? Discuss amongst yourselves. Keep in mind that there are no wrong answers here -- I am just curious.