There's been a number of diaries on this and the aftermath of Proposition 8, and many of the arguments center around notions of what exactly marriage is, and that there is somehow "marriage" and "weddings" as distinctly different things. Also that marriage is a completely civil institution.
I'm not sure where the first comes from. I'm certainly open to learn of this distinction and any legalities behind it, but I'm not aware of any.
As to the "civil" issue, its debatable, and that's the problem witholding legal protection from millions, including many in arrangements that don't involve either gay or straight unions.
The argument that marriage in its current shape is somehow "eternal" (i.e. of Godly origin) is ridiculous, of course. Marriage for centuries in European (and other) settings revolved not around church or state but family, and was seen as a kind of binding of two families or houses.
But gradually the church took over marriage more and more in Christendom, mainly as an outgrowth of the notion that the union had to receive divine blessing to be made perpetual (at least as perpetual as possible ... divorce in some circumstances has always been acknowledged, even in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments). Well up into the Middle Ages, it was still more or less a "family" thing, but the church became the record-keeper and "blesser" of it.
Since our law and all precedents precede from England, marriage in England was strictly a church thing until the 18th Century, when the state began to recognize marriages performed in certain churches...mainly the Anglican church, of course. Over the 18th and 19th Centuries, in both the UK and US, the state became more enmeshed in marriage law because it gradually became the "recorder" of things and because the state took over legal concerns from the church completely as the notion of the state and church being intertwined dissolved.
So, now, of course, we are all quite used to the concepts of civil and "canonical" marriage, state-based and church-based. Even church-based marriges, these days, have to be recorded with the state because marriage has become so wrapped up in the tax and legal codes.
As long as that continues to exist, then yes, homosexuals should be allowed to marry in civil ceremonies. At least, that's how I feel, but as long as the state is the "sayer of things" in this regard, it leaves it open to public approval as to what marriage is.
And right now, rightly or wrongly, a large segment of the public still perceives that marriage has a leg in both the civil and canonical worlds, thus (at least in part) it is a religious institution.
As long as that perception holds, we're going to have Prop 8's of various kinds. Hopefully, this will pass and more and more people will come to accept it.
Right or wrong, there is now a distinction in the mind of most being made between "marriage' (i.e. at least partiallly a function of religion) and "civil unions" (wholly secular). And this is why I and others would prefer that the state remove itself from "marriage" and focus solely on "civil unions". That's because there will be far less resistance to the civil union concept, even as it confers the same exact rights as does marriage.
Is all of this semantical to some degree? Yes, and as a result, we can tie ourselves into knots over words that essentially mean the same thing.
But if it helps confer rights that should be conferred right now, instead of decades down the line, then I'm all for "civil unions." If society could accept "marriage" for gays right now, then I would be fine with that too.
But the issue will only broaden further. The reason why, in the end, I want the state completely out of the "marriage" game is that I see no reason in today's society to limit this sort of arrangement to just man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman.
What about two old men or ladies who have no family, live with one another on fixed incomes, and may need to act legally on behalf of one another in case of emergency?
What of college students sharing a living arrangement? They may also need a legal status to work out financial and living arrangements between them, as well as acting on each other's behalf in emergencies.
Modern society has many arrangements between people that don't involve "marriage" but that require the same kinds of legal protections that marriage usually confers.
So, for that reason, not some kind of "libertarianism" (although I do tend toward social libertarian views), I would prefer that the concept of "marriage," legal, semantic, whatever, be formally done away with by the state to be replaced strictly by civil unions, the nature of which are agreed upon by the parties involved in their entirety.
The next evolution in this concept should not be toward greater involvement and authority of the state, but toward greater authority and involvement of individuals working out living arrangements that suit their needs, with the state simply being the record keeper and court system, as needed.
It would also help a lot of people accept gay unions that much quicker, and end the injustice we're seeing with Prop 8, as well as the injustice millions in different living arrangements go through all the time.
But, if it becomes a push about "marriage" then, of course, I'm a supporter of gay marriage. Just be prepared for the fight to last a lot longer and more people of all persuasions to go without the needed protection of the law.