Would the recognition of same-sex marriage be fulfilling?

I read an excellent article today that precisely depicts what I've been thinking about: the proponants of same-sex marriage are not interested in any right that they don't already have, or in the ability to live their lives the way they choose.  Instead, they simply want to make their way of live accepted by society at large. 

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/06/3060

I'll summarize: 

Once upon a time, the gay rights movement only sought to not be persecuted.  Engaging in homosexual practices was illegal, and they sought to have such laws declared unconstitutional on the grounds that they wanted to live according to their own chosen lifestyle.  Essentially, they were asking for the right to pursue happiness in the way they believed morally acceptable.

Today, things are different.  No serious political actors want to return to the days of sodomy laws; indeed, it is distincly frowned upon to persecute homosexuals.  Homosexuals are tolerated, and homophobia is frowned upon.  Yet the LBGT movement has continued to press for same-sex marriage, despite the fact that this wouldn't affect gays' and lesbians' ablity to live their chosen lifestyles.  Instead, it appears that they only seeking same-sex marriage so as to confer upon their lifesyle social acceptance.

What Carson Holloway, the author of the above-cited article, is saying, is that this public acceptance won't give gays and lesbians any substantive good.  The strongest argument, he says, is one following the natural law theory: homosexuality is against nature and should not, therefore, be accepted.  If homosexuality is indeed against natural law, then accepting it, rewarding it, institutionalizing it, won't give anyone anything.  Indeed, it would end up hurting the people it seek to help by tricking them into an unnatural lifestyle.

If on the other hand, homosexuality is not against the natural law, then  accepting it won't make it any better.  It would be, as Holloway says, "...nothing more than a needless addition to a naturally fulfilling undertaking."  If homosexuality were so fulfilling, why all the fuss about whether it's accepted or not?

I like much of what Holloway says.  I've never been a uber-fan of natural law theory (I have no objections to it, I just haven't read much about it) but all of this seems to make sense.  Here are my thoughts:

Even among heterosexual couples, these days there is little that people can do in marriage that they cannot do outside of marriage.  The difference lies in what is done to them.  People can live together, have children, have a loving and even sexual relationship, write wills including each other, all without marriage.  The benefits that come with marriage are simply those that happen because society approves of and rewards that specific.  Individuals have the right to be able to do what his neighbor can do.  One does not have the right to have done to himself the same thing that is done to another who acts differently.  In other words, two people who act differently cannot expect to receive the same consequence.  Hence, gays and lesbians should not expect to have done to them (aka, be accepted) the same as if they acted heterosexually. 

In the end, it's a question of rights.  Individuals have right to be tolerated in non-criminal behavior; they do not have the right to be accepted in any behavior.  Society has a right to define its institutions to match the moral beliefs of the majority of its inhabitants.  No court can substitute the public morality for an alien, though tolerated one, without becoming the very tool of despotism.