why bother with it at all?
Because it formally invokes community & government recognition and support of the man devoting himself to providing for his family, his wife devoted to nurturing their child, and the child totally dependent on others; the community both gives special support to them as a procreating family, makes sure they stay together as a unit, and give backup support when one cannot perform their family duties.
In a nation where family breakup is expected, the pre-born are killed for convenience, children are foisted off to daycare while parents selfishly pursue careers, government penalizes marriage thru higher taxes, and procreation is oft viewed as foolishness instead of cultural survival, there is little surprise that the originating purpose of the institution of marriage has ben obfuscated to the point that people think a couple of guys (or gals) can "marry".
Yes, "gay marriage" is one of my main voting issues. The institution of marriage exists for continuing the species while maintaining a high social standard. Any candidate supporting "gay marriage" holds fundamental beliefs anathema to my own; the concept cannot be rationally derived from anything I hold dear.
My other voting issues:
- Taxes. GHWB lost my vote second time 'round precisely because of promising "no new taxes" then signing the biggest tax increase in history.
- Defense. Only "peace thru superior firepower" saves lives.
- Abortion. Life begins at conception, period; I'm not supporting those who advocate/allow murder.
(Mods, I don't want to argue this point, I'm just answering the thread's question. Leaving the third-rail reference at that.)
- Free speech/religion. These "ban X because it might offend someone" usually constitute thinly veiled oppression, as X hasn't offended anyone - but banning X offends the heck out of me.
I've got other voting issues, but those pretty much dominate my choice.