"Marriage" as pre-political?

In a recent post (here), Rob Vischer writes (quoting an article in the National Catholic Register):

"[H]ere's an insightful snippet about the the tendency of SSM to come with a more statist orientation than traditional marriage:  'Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. . . . .  By contrast, same-sex 'marriage' is completely a creation of the state."

In what I am about to say, by "marriage" I mean heterosexual marriage.

When one refers to a "right", one may be referring to a legal category (i.e., a legal right) or to a non-legal category (e.g., a moral right).  Similarly, when one refers to "marriage", one may be referring to a legal category or to a non-legal category.  "Marriage" as a legal category is obviously not pre-political, any more than "a right to ..." as a legal category is pre-political.  Whether the law should recognize and protect marriage, understood as a non-legal category--and thereby make marriage (also) a legal category--is a political decision.  Whether the law should recognize and protect same-sex unions, understood as a non-legal category--and thereby make same-sex unions (also) a legal category--is no more (and no less) a political decision than the decision whether to recognize and protect marriage, understood as a non-legal category.  So it isn't clear to me what Rob means when he says "the tendency of SSM to come with a more statist orientation than traditional marriage."

In any event, I take it that both Rob and I agree that one can simultaneously support the state's extending the benefit of law to same-sex unions and oppose the state's abridging one's religious liberty to take up an oppositional stance to same-sex unions.  There are three choices, not just two:

1.  No to the state's extending the benefit of law to same-sex unions.

2.  Yes to the state's extending the benefit of law to same-sex unions, and no to the state's abridging one's religious liberty to take up an oppositional stance to same-sex unions.

3.  Yes to the state's extending the benefit of law to same-sex unions, and yes to the state's abridging one's religious liberty to take up an oppositional stance to same-sex unions.