Not only that, but it certainly did well for Santorum’s campaign. He realizes how much of the nation is religious, and so does the media. Not to say that he isn’t genuinely religious, only to say that he has good reason to flaunt it. 

Whether a state should expand the definition of marriage to expand the rights each person has (e.g. to “marry” one or more persons of the same sex) is a purely political decision where judicial opinions are irrelevant. States are not required to title or treat different kinds of contracts or groups-entities the same, e.g., corporations can be treated differently than partnerships and, likewise, marriage contracts can be treated differently than homosexual contracts. Also, states are not required to promote deviant behavior simply because they promote preferred behavior.

The definition of marriage doesn’t restrict any freedom of homosexual individuals or couples. Equal protection is satisfied because: (a) each individual has the exact same right to marry, lobby representatives, engage in private acts, enter private contracts with anyone, etc. & (b) mixed-gender couples, who generally can reproduce & raise their own biological children, are clearly different from same-gender “couples,” 100% of whom cannot reproduce & raise their own biological children. Exceptions where married couples don’t or can’t have children doesn’t change the facts that (a) 100% of same-sex “couples” cannot reproduce & raise their own biological children & (b) homosexuality is different & deviant compared to heterosexuality. The general assumption that most married males and females will procreate is a rational assumption that is not undone by exceptions.

When it comes to equality, there’s an insurmountable difference between inexorable physical traits (e.g. skin color) and the contents of one’s mind. While mental minorities are free to have deviant thoughts, there is no constitutional obligation to elevate deviant thoughts with a law promoting action on those deviant thoughts, e.g., there is no requirement to expand the rights under marriage laws to permit groups B, C or D to act on their deviant thoughts to “marry” like group A. It is purely a political question up to voters and their elected representatives, not judicial fiat of an unelected left-wing judges to decide whether to promote actions based on deviant thoughts.