I actually don't think you're understanding yet. You insult argument without understanding the full of it. Whether the marriage license can be abolished or not is in fact extremely relevant because all further action is taken from that reality. Reality is the government is secular. While it shouldn't have taken over marriage, it did and that's reality and has to be dealt with. Because government took over marriage, it moved marriage from the realm of religion to the realm of State-issued contract. The right to contract is a fundamental right of the individual, and denying one's right to contract is an infringement upon their rights and liberties. A fundamental reason why government was made in the first place was to ensure the rights and liberties of the People.
So reality here dictates over the mandates of theocracy, and the measured world is the world by which we interact. Saying that the marriage license can be abolished doesn't negate anything, that's a simplistic overture to try to dismiss an argument you can't argue against (one rooted in the rights of the individual). What exists now, what in reality is the interaction? Marriage is mediated by the marriage license, a State-issued contract. While I agree that the correct solution is the abolition of the marriage license, that does not negate the fact that it does exist and we must deal with it as it exists. As a State-issued contract, the government is forbidden from infringing upon an individual's ability to freely engage in the contract on religious grounds. Man/woman is essentially a religious argument, as that restriction has no bearing on actual terms and execution of contract. The marriage contract contains within it many active contracts important for a person's daily life. Who gets to make life/death decisions, taxes, insurance, estate issues, etc. There's no reason why someone shouldn't be able to choose whom they want to be able to execute these positions and wield the proper authority to do so. The marriage license has entangled itself to include all these things, and as they are contracts dealing with the execution of certain desires depenant upon condition, a person is free to choose who they want heading those decisions. To deny same-sex marriage is to deny someone the ability to dictate mandates of contract over activities of their daily lives. Most certainly an infringement upon their right to contract.
That is reality, no matter how many deflection arguments you want to make or dismissive statements you want to make or how badly you'd like to call my argument "void" because you have the possibility of removing something; that's reality. We deal with reality, not delusions of grandeur. It is possible to revolt against the government and overthrow it, but that doesn't mean we sit back and watch the government spiral out of control till the point at which we must revolt. Just because there is a probability outcome doesn't mean that we must ignore the current reality, this is the breakdown of your argument and why your base assumptions are flat out wrong. There is a possibility of the marriage license being abolished, but current reality is that the marriage license exists and just because there is a possibility of X happening doesn't excuse treason and tyranny over the rights of others in the current reality. If you want to remove the marriage license, I'll be there supporting it. But until that time we must deal with current reality of the marriage license. Marriage currently is controlled by the State, and because of that it cannot enforce religious mandate; it must act by the rights and liberties of the People. As such, my original statement in its full remains valid. While the marriage license exists, there is no logical argument against same-sex marriage. Truth and measured reality. Deal with it.