But if all we're doing is just changing the name.. then who really cares? Marriage isn't historically a religious institution, it's a civil one.
- my inheritance: my spouse can get my SS income when I die, my wife inherits my goods by default, etc. Now gays get the same treatment.
- taxes: are different for married and non-married folks. Now gays get the same treatment.
IOW "follow the money".
This ruling will change how much money the government pays to its citizens and how money is passed among its citizens (after marriage and death in particular). But nobody ever discussed the ramifications of this and the entire discussion was based around a bunch of bombast.
So we're not simply "changing the name".
Actually now ANY TWO people can get the same treatment. Two straight males can get married. If I was single and I had a friend with good benefits, I'd make a case to get married... The savings on insurance and taxes we'd share. Now if millions did this, the cost of those benefits will go up drastically.
Get married to a platonic roommate with a prenup. Risky some what, but with prenups and no fault divorce the risk is greatly diminished.
The access to finding another human to join incomes and assets for tax planning purposes has doubled.
It doesn't help you if the other party doesn't get any of your stuff in a divorce if you're still saddled with debts they took on while you were married.
There may be places where this is possible, but I doubt it'd be worth it once you factor in the cost of sufficiently safeguarding yourself, unless there are massive amounts of money involved.
That said, I do object to the oft-stated remark that marriage has historically been a civil rather than religious institution, primarily because historically that's been a distinction without a difference. Such remarks tend to take a separation of church and state for granted when, in reality, both those things were very frequently conflated until maybe the last few centuries, and even then it was a very gradual shift in practice.
Hell, church and state are still one and the same in much of the modern world (see also: significant portions of the Middle East, the United Kingdom, various others). Implying that this was any less prevalent historically is, well, silly.