I'm fine with this, doesnt bother me in the slightest even though my religion was quite against it. There really isnt any good reason for gay people to not have the right to be married. However, I still look at this whole process as backwards. The problem wasnt that the government wasnt allowing gay marriage, the problem was that the government had any say in who marries who to begin with.

Marriage is a commitment between two people to share their lives together, people shouldnt have to ask the governments permission to do so. Let alone pay the government for the right to it. People should have been fighting to get the government out of marriage all together instead of begging them to control it even more...

Social and natural order are intertwined concept. They are the same thing. Social constructivism is wrong. The whole gay rights movement is founded on nothing more than liberal hogwash premised on aged ideals of free love from the 1960's.

The state does not care about concepts of love. It cares about the welfare and protection of the nation's children. Marriage is about the institutionalization of the natural family.

So are you of the opinion that sterile couples, elderly couples and couples who simply don't want kids should not marry? It's all about protecting children, after all, and such couples won't have children to protect so there's no reason to allow them to marry. What about gay couples who wish to adopt? Are they not allowed that family structure?

people haven't been asking for the government for the right to commit to one another, they have been asking for the government to grant them the same rights and benefits that others who were allowed to marry had. That doesn't give the government anymore control over marriage it just increases the number of people who can get married.

There are so many legal rights and benefits that come from marriage so if you take that institution away what would you replace them with? Would you require people to set them all up individually? If you want to do away with them then you would be taking away peoples rights to make the decisions to make that form of commitment to one another

Indeed, over 1100 to be precise.  Not just rights and benefits, but also responsibilities (next of kin, etc...)

http://www.youngcons.com/texas-governor-defends-religious-liberties-and-its-hardcore/
'In a directive issued in the last few hours, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott has informed all those agencies that they are to comply with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article I of the Texas Constitution, and the Texas Religious Freedom Act. In other words, he just shut down same-sex marriage in Texas and ordered everyone to preserve the religious liberties and First Amendment rights of all Texans.'

Is this serious or blahblahblah?

Luckily, I think even in Texas there are many reasonable clerks who will issue said licenses. Managers at these offices will quickly learn that it isn't productive to employ clerks who are not doing the job that others are doing, and hopefully they will quietly discriminate against applicants who feel that marriage licenses should only be for opposite sex couples. 

I view this similar to a doctor's freedom to choose whether or not he/she will do abortions. Unfortunately since the state has a monopoly on licensing marriages I find this much more devastating though. This is a clear example why state monopolies are just as bad as other types of monopolies, if not worse because they are evidently force-induced, rather than implicitly so.

The question is why should the majority of these priveleges exist at all? What makes a "married" couple more special than a non-married one? What makes a couple more special than singe persons? Why should married persons get tax breaks that unmarried couples and single persons do not? The next of kin issue can easily be resolved through contract law or common law judgements like it had for the hundreds of years prior to government involvement with spousal and familial relationships. A state license is not necessary for this.

What are those benefits?

1,138 to be precise.  

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

Here's a pdf with them all listed:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

It's 18 pages.