Pennsylvania Approval of Gay Marriage is Progressive! ...Or is it?

This just in: Pennsylvania courts have overruled that the ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and therefore may be repealed. The linked article is an affirmation that the governor will not go out of his way to appeal the ruling.

This is awesome-- I have no qualms with this. However, the fact that this is news, something to be lauded, instead of expected is just baffling. There is no reason why these issues should be debated in courts where the basis of the opposition relies on religious values. The argument against same-sex marriage is that it subverts the idea of "traditional marriage," or the union between man and woman. Yet where does this idea of traditional marriage emerge from? Most linguists will tell you definitions of words change and evolve over time so why does this definition stagnate?

Survey says it's based in the teachings of the Christian and Islamic churches. In the Bible we know the drill. Leviticus 20:13 in the King James Bible tells us, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." So that makes homosexual relationships off-limits, since according to the New Testament, sex is reserved for marriage.
The Qu'ran echoes this idea in the story of Lot in Surat Al-'A`rāf 7:80-84, "And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people. But the answer of his people was only that they said, "Evict them from your city! Indeed, they are men who keep themselves pure."
Now, I'm going to ignore the obvious bigotry and hypocrisy inherent in these two works because that is a discussion for a post when I have more energy. However, I will ask how these religious beliefs have any bearing on the secular-based laws attributed to the state and federal constitutions. After all, the first Amendment of the freakin' US Constitution says that the country will respect no establishment of a national religion.

I think what bothers me most is the legal and political benefits of marriage-- it is no longer just a promise between two people but a deal with the state that gives married couples certain rights not afforded to single people. The list includes but is not limited to tax write-offs, parenting rights, bereavement leave, and joint insurance coverage.