Gonna respond to your second point first.
Now the main legal argument for SSM is an equal protection violation, based on the fact that not allowing a women to enter the contract of marriage with another women is a violation of the 14th amendment, on the basis of gender. Now gender is in the second tier of levels of scrutiny, in where the state must show a specific state interest, and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest. Now do you think, the state could do both things, and what do you think are those things, and if the SCOTUS gets a SSM case, and rule that it is in violation of the 14 amendment do you think it would be an "activist ruling"?
Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, so women are allowed to enter into a contract of marriage, but in order for it to be a marriage, it has to be a contract with a man. No one is being discriminated against on the basis of gender, they simply aren't allowed to redefine what marriage is. And I think it would be an activist ruling to redefine marriage, because as I said before, it is a cultural and religious institution in addition to being a legal one. Additionally, it is the role of the legislature to define and redefine acceptable legal contracts. The court's role is to enforce those contracts.
The thing is though, the Brown v Board ruling outlawed separate but equal institutions along with separate but unequal institutions. With that in mind would you change your stance on that?
And personally, I would probably compromise with equal legal standing Civil Unions, for the simple reason that I wouldn't want to hurt my future family by waiting for the marriage title, and would hope that the SCOTUS would declare it unconstitutional on the grounds of separate but equal.
Civil unions would be their own class of legal contracts seperate and distinct from marriage, despite granting the same rights.
I'm curious why some gay rights activists push so adamantly for MARRIAGE. And either are reluctant or outright refuse to accept the civil unions option. As long as civil unions grant the same rights as a legal marriage, why does the name matter so much? It's largely a case of semantics. I know this argument cuts both ways, I'll respond for my viewpoint. As I've said before, marriage is more than a legal contract. If marriage was only a legal contract, then I'd have no problem redefining it as whatever. It's a cultural and relgious institution as well and I don't feel its the proper role of government to start redefining cultural and religious matters. If our culture wants to redefine marriage to include same sex couples, it will in its own time. Same for religious institutions, some have already accepted, some others may accept it in the future, and others probably never will.
My theory, and it could be totally off base since I'm not at all involved in the LGBT community, is that hard core activist for gay MARRIAGE want to use the government to redefine not only the legal construct, but the cultural one, in order to help push for increased acceptance and tolerance. But I think trying to force that kind of change, particularly through court rulings, will just create a backlash that slows down the movement towards increased acceptance and tolerance. Homosexuality has made huge stides towards being accepted by mainstream culture in the last twenty years. I think the biggest mistake the gay community could make right now is to over reach for things society isn't ready to accept, like calling a same sex couple a marriage. Most people are willing to compromise and accept civil unions, but they're not quite ready to apply the marriage tag. Its a step forward for the gay community and frankly I think they should embrace it.
As a note to you all, unless something eggregious occurs in the Beta Test no actual therad bans or such is going to come down. This is as much a time to tweak the guidelines as it is to see how discussion works. 
