In 1967, Loving v Virginia struck down anti-miscegenation laws in the US. Prior to this, several states banned interracial marriage. Supporters justified them in various ways, and commonly cited various biblical passages to support their views, for example the story of Phinehas and the "curse of Ham." Prior to this time, many people were, and some still are, passionate that interracial marriage was abhorrent.
In examining this issue it is extremely important to look at marriage not so much as a social or religious concept, but as a legal one. Government makes and enforces law. It does not decide if you get into heaven or whether you are offended by someone else's social slight. From this standpoint, marriage is a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities enshrined in law.
With the passage of proposition 8, California has eliminated these rights from a whole class of citizen. The motivation for this seems to be religious and social, not legal. There was no legal problem with gay marriage. It didn't affect anyone else's marriage and no one was required to recognize anyone else to be married in the eyes of God, Allah or the FSM. No church was be required to perform a gay marriage ceremony any more than they could be required to perform an interracial marriage ceremony, or for that matter, a straight marriage ceremony. The law cannot reach that far. There is a huge first amendment problem in either case. With that sort of narrow exception, the law simply granted the same bundle of rights, on a state level, to gay people that others already enjoyed.
I know that I am not really saying anything new to most of the people here. I simply want to make the point that, insofar as state law is concerned, we are strictly talking about a legal matter. Hence, while society and religion are involved, the solution must ultimately come down to law.
People inside of California have options to address the issue from within the state. But I can't help but ponder what people outside of the state, can do. I have not had the time to research the issue in detail so take this for what its worth. Generally, the constitution's full faith and credit clause requires states to recognize other states legal acts including marriages. There are narrow public policy related exceptions to this.
Here is a hypothetical for you to ponder. For the most part, if state A allows lawyers from state B admission to state A's bar (typically after so many years of practice and perhaps some ancillary requirements) then state B will allow state A's lawyers admission as well. What would happen if we applied a similar sort of reciprocity to marriage? State A recognizes state B's marriages if the reverse holds true. No recognition of gay marriage means no recognition of any marriage or, as a legal matter, no bundle of rights under the law for state B's marriage if it does not recognize all of state A's marriages.
Of course I recognize that this is not going to happen and two wrongs do not make a right. It is as much a matter of illustrating of what marriage is as anything else...
Okay, it also appeals to my sense of mischief on a grand scale.