Whatever that kind of relationship is, and I'm assuming it's a good one by the way, it's not a "marriage". A "marriage" is a man and a woman who decide to start a family together. The piece of paper is nice, but that's not what a "marriage" is. That is why most states have a "common law marriage" definition. If gay marriage is the law, then two people of the same sex who live together fall under the same legal requirements for a common law marriage as would a man and woman living together.
So your son or daughter moves in with a same-sex friend while they're in university and because they're good friends, they are together in the same apartment for four years. If gay marriage is a legal institution, then under half a dozen state laws defining common law marriage they are now married and all the legal rights of marriage apply to them. ALL the legal rights, including property, bank accounts, insurance, debt, and personal items.
That is the aspect of gay marriage no one is telling you about. It's not about the love. It's about money, property, possessions, and insurance. It provides legal recourse for homosexuals who fall in love with heterosexual roommates and get their heart broken when that roommate gets married.
If it were about love I would support it wholeheartedly, but it's not. It's about your best friend wanting your stuff because you got married and left them all alone. It's about visitation rights in hospitals when your lover is in a car accident and the homophobic doctor refuses to recognize the relationship. It's about who gets the house and the mutual fund when someone dies: the live-in homosexual lover they had for the last decade of their life or the kids from their original marriage.
These are the kinds of problems that Prop. 8 created in California. These are the reasons it was voted down. These are the reasons it was a complete violation of all that is right and proper when the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court reinstated it last week.
Gay marriage empowers gay thuggery in the same way that common law marriage empowers heterosexual thuggery. Even worse, it does so to the detriment of genuine gay love because suddenly common law marriage rules come into play and easy-going relationships have a whole new set of stressors applied to them.
If the love were there in the first place they wouldn't need a legal definition of gay marriage. That is not what this law or any other law does. The reason we have marriage laws in the first place is because there are too many men and women who don't honor their familial responsibilities. Marriage laws protect children and spouses and encourage (admittedly, very weakly) couples to stay together when things aren't perfect.
And that's not even getting into the quagmire of gay adoption.
Sadly, it's not about the love. It it were, they wouldn't need a law.