I have close friends on both sides of this contentous issue, and I can see the virtues and pitfalls of both arguments. But lately I've been called a homophobe - a backward, far-right homophobe, to be exact - because my stance on the matter isn't hardcore enough for some of my friends on the pro-gay-marriage side.
So, in hopes of fending off future attacks from folks who evidently misunderstand my simple message, I'm using my blog to lay out my exact stance on gay marriage. Please, as you read it, try very hard to understand it.
I beleive in the absolute equality of all living beings. This is in a legal and social sense. I know that some of us are either smarter or less smart than others, some are better looking or not so good-looking, taller or shorter, fatter or thinner. But legally and socially, we're all equal in the sense that we each carry the same legal importance, the same social validity. At first.
Even without those things, we still all have the same rights. The laws are written exactly the same for a heterosexual white man as they are for a lesbian black woman. Lately there has been a movement, primarily populated with people who are sgainst the idea of accepting gay marriage in their society, toward using the legal definition of "marriage" as an excuse not to allow it. I find this to be something of a cop-out, although I have to admit that I find a kernel of validity in the argument.
But even without the legal definition, there remains the simple, social definition. A marriage is simply not a union between either two men or two women. It's simply not. In this case, I refer to what I've been calling "Practicing the Art of What Is".
You and I have certain wants, certain desires, which aren't being met in real life. Don't we? You know you do. You want a fast car, a hot wife, a more understanding husband, maybe a bigger house. You want more money, a nicer boss, a smoother complexion. Whatever it is, something in your life isn't what you feel it could be, or should be. Not all things will ever be satisfactory. Those of us involved in the study Buddhism think of this idea as part of the First Noble Truth, wherein the Buddha taught that suffering - he used a word closer to "unsatisfactory-ness" - is everywhere in life. Another adjunct to this is that, living in the modern world, we've come to accept that there are certain things that we cannot change. We will get sick one day, for instance. There are things we can do about, but it's still going to happen. Car crashes happen; it's a fact of life. Crime happens; another fact. I can change none of these things - especially not by simply deciding that they don't happen. This is the Art of What Is.
What if we rename crime? What if, from now on, we call it blau-punky? Now, officially, crime no longer exists. All there is is blau-punky, which founds foolish but not as bad as crime. But people will still kill others, steal from others, rape others. Making silly changes in the words we use doesn't necessarily change What Is, does it?
By the way, here are a few other examples of What Is:
The color blue IS the color blue. It cannot be red, no matter what. At the point at which it becomes red, it ceases to be blue.
There are still pirates and cowboys in the world, but there are neither Samurai nor Ninja. The Samurai and the Ninja ceased to exist during the Meiji Restoration - more precisely in the case of Samurai, in 1868. You can practice martial arts that are believed to have once been practiced by the Samurai or the Ninja, but that doesn't make you one of them.
A Kindle, Nook, or whatever other electronic device is not a book. 
It contains the contents of many books, yes; but it's still not a book. Period.
Gay people, same as straight people, bi people, whatever, don't need my blessing to conduct their relationships as they see fit. No one gives a shit if his or her lifestyle meets with my approval. Still, I feel obligated to throw this out there: I am comletely in favor of anyone leading whatever lifestyle - at least, in this context - he or she chooses. If you're gay and you have a relationship another person, good on ya. Although you have no need for my approval, you have it. No person will ever meet with judgment or poor treatment of any kind from me, at least not based on his or her sexual tendencies (this is subject to change if I find out you've been fucking chickens).
So I see a valid argument both ways. While I do understand that some people simply hate gays and want them all to either convert to some wierd religion like Christianity (and thus, I guess, pray the gay away), I also understand that those people are simply using the "definition of marriage" argument because they're not bright enough to effectively reword their own feelings to make them more palatable. In my experience, every time I've used the "definition" argument, I've been seen as closed-minded and ignorant, neither of which is the case (I hope). But if we follow the premise that there is such a thing as "What Is", then we simply have to accept the concept of marriage as one union between one man and one woman. We cannot change that simply because it's something that doesn't meet with our approval as a definition.
So, in conclusion: Two men or two women living together in some manner of domestic partnership? Absolutely. Gay marriage? Sorry, no such thing. Marriage is what marriage is, and you and I can't change that, simply because we feel like it.
Now, if you don't mind, please move the political flavor of the month to something else.
UPDATE:
We played the 4th of July celebration at Cinco Ranch in Katy, Texas last night. Three hours in front of 20,000 people! And the Ampeg/Fender rig did outstanding!! Not a blip or a blemish in the tone, volume or smoothness, no peaks and valleys, no humming or popping. I had the compression turned up more than halfway, the 16dB button was pushed in the whole time, and the soundman had it lined out through the stage box.
Folks, I gotta tell ya, that Fender box can RUMBLE!!!!!