Is Marriage a Constitutional, Religious, or Moral Right?

While eating breakfast this morning I saw the proposed moratorium on homosexual marriage still hasn't been lifted. Whether this is because the judge is still allowing for appeals to be made to the ninth district court of appeals or there is some other sort of hurdle in the way, I don't know, but for sure this topic of gay marriage won't be going away any time soon.

Over the past few weeks I have been reading countless arguments for and against gay marriage, and have found that the majority of arguments against gay marriage have a very strong religious lean on them. Thus, because a non-religious person isn't going to accept a religious argument as valid when it comes to this debate I searched for a secular reason why we shouldn't have gay marriage and found this interesting article.

However, I have another argument that isn't being brought up. It seems at all.

Where is marriage a fundamentally guaranteed right according to the Constitution? It isn't. Why? Because marriage is a religious practice (sacrament, ordinance, etc...). Unlike voting, right to trial, or the right to bear arms; these rights aren't given by the religion you profess. They are given by the government you are under.

At marriages core it is a covenant made between a husband, wife, and their creator (whomever their deity may be). Thus, a religious issue and not a state or federal issue. However, states and federal governments regulate marriage for tax, medical, and any other reason that has a dollar sign attached to it. Money, money, money.

Nonetheless, are all persons, including the homosexual crowd, guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by their government? Yes, but are these same gays and lesbians granted the right to same sex marriages within their religion? According to most world religions the answer is no. Thus, the homosexual crowd should cry for reform within their religions and not within their state or country. However, since the state has its hands all over marriage this has morphed from an issue of religion into an issue of morality. Let the majority, religious or not, decide amongst themselves what is best or moral for their city, county, state (in this case; California in 2008 with prop 8) or federal government.

Yet, Judge Vaughn Walker decided the state's morality was outdated and that his standard measured the true feel of morality throughout the state. Now we wait and see what happens in California and if this doesn't end up in the Supreme Court.

So, is this issue of gay marriage something that should be regulated alone by religions because it is a religious institute or is something better left alone in the hands of the public to decide whether it fits their standard of morality?