You wrote:

<<There is no such thing as a secular marriage.>>

I see, we are in the realm of the post-fact. Yes, there actually is such a thing. It's called "civil marriage." Its authority is U.S. law.

You wrote:

<<Further, the government violated the first amendment with the marriage decision since it clearly states that the government shall make no law respecting religion or the free exercise thereof.>>

The United States doesn't view marriage as a religious absolute. Your argument boils down to a desire to impose the Catholic view of marriage on a pluralistic society. Now THAT would be unconstitutional.

Yet more evidence that the religious right is instinctually theocratic and autocratic.