Have you looked up the word "sanctity" in the dictionary lately? It is clear that most of the nation's politicians have not. All this (moronic) talk of "defending the sanctity of marriage" is just embarrassing for its overt hypocrisy. Sanctity referrs to the holiness or sacredness of an object. Since when did the state (in the philosophical sense of that word) grant sacred status to objects? If the state does not make objects holy, does it make sense to assume that the state can make objects less holy?
For instance, how could Wisconsin make the Christian cross less of a holy object for Christians, thereby reducing or eliminating the sanctity of the object? The short answer, of course, is that it couldn't.
To some, a marraige is only holy if it is performed by a recognized religious figure. Marriages performed by judges or justices of the peace are inherently state-sponsored unions with no religious blessings, and thereby strictly without sanctity.
So, how exactly, does banning gay marriages preserve the sancity of marriage when the state already sponsors a mechanism that creates marriages without any form of sanctity?