Gay marriage and the legalization same sex unions has been a pressing issue across the United States as well as the rest of the world. 
Whichever is right, I do not wish to discuss the legalization of gay marriage or keeping marriage a union only between a man and a woman, but rather the underlying notion that marriage is controlled solely by the government.
In essence my question is this: why must we ask the government to be married?
In ancient Rome, religion and culture were the driving forces behind marriage. 
According to roman-colosseum.info, marriages were not government issued: “Marriage was established by consent and (dis-)continued by dissent; for the dissent of either party, when formally expressed, could dissolve the relation.”  Thus, even with its government regulating marriage to limit it based on class and age, marriage was still a matter mostly of free choice. 
Marriages were overseen by priests and witnessed by peers and friends, with minimal regulation by the government.
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution commands Congress make no law that infringes upon citizen’s right to free exercise of religion. 
Consequently, no religion can craft laws that are based upon its tenants to the exclusion of outside influence. 
Everyone should be allowed free choice regarding religion and related matters, and even though many religions hold the institution of marriage to be special or sacred, no single religion is allowed to have preference over the others outside of establishing tradition. 
Forcing your morality on other people is not useful, as it rarely works and often acts to distance people from each other since morality is often personal and difficult to decide in the public space.
The 10th Amendment states all rights not enumerated in the constitution are held by the people.  This means the right to marriage, which is not elsewhere mentioned, is a right exclusively held by the people, not the federal government. 
Any act by Congress, the president or the Supreme Court to make a decision regarding marriage rights could thereby be expressly violating the 10th Amendment. 
Historically, attempts to do away with common law marriages and enforce government marriage licenses in the U.S. were often less than noble. 
Marriage licenses were originally intended partially to prevent interracial marriages according to marriage.laws.com, “Marriage license laws were originally aimed at preventing non whites from entering in marriage and being granted the rights and responsibilities generally conferred upon marriage.
Later, interracial couples were forbidden from obtaining a marriage license.” 
Sadly, the Bill of Rights was originally put in place to protect our civil rights, and here they have been violated, in express conflict with the law of the land.
Unsurprisingly, the U.S. is not the only nation facing issues with government marriage rights. According to cbsnews.com Russia acts strongly to suppress its gay rights movement.  Russia recently enacted a bill to make protests  and homosexual propaganda illegal.
CBS reports, “The bill is part of an effort to promote traditional Russian values as opposed to Western liberalism, which the Kremlin and (the Eastern Orthodox Church) see as corrupting Russian youth and by extension contributing to a wave of protest against President Vladimir Putin’s rule.” Russians are starting to lose their freedom to voice their opinions.
The Russian people have the opinion of the majority forced upon them often at the cost of their civil rights, and the gay rights movement there is only one of many minority groups being repressed within the country.
Returning to the issue of state-sanctioned marriage, I understand there are reasons to put legal restrictions on marriage to prevent abuse, making allowances for these kinds of conditions wholly justifies government control of marriage licenses. 
Although government regulation is useful to prevent people from taking advantage of each other in underage marriages, unwilling polygamy and other potentially criminal abuses, licensing and permitting marriages should not be under the power of the government alone. 
Ideally, if you do or do not want to be in a marriage, your actions are to be between you and your spouse and anyone else you ask to be involved.
To end I would like to examine the issue at hand.  Some people want to redefine and enjoy the benefits of binding, legal marriage, and other people want to match it to fit their moral convictions. 
This issue could fade to nothing if both sides take note of our freedom regarding personal moral choices if we all reexamine the assumption of government control that is over issues traditionally considered religious and cultural and is not founded in the Constitution.