Gay Marriage

I hesitate even to open up this topic, but it seems to be the only thing going on in the American political arena right now. And while in Europe the question is for the present not on the front burner, it is always simmering because of the large number of European Catholics and therefore the clash of the Church's ideas about gay marriage with the needs of politicians.
So, gay marriage vs equal rights for gay couples -- is there a difference that is meaningful between these two situations?

EQUAL RIGHTS
For me, gay couples should have equal rights in every respect - pensions, health care for partners, owning or renting property, wills and testaments, job and political opportunities -- everything except...and here, I tread softly because we have no real experience or data to guide us. Except for adoption. I don't know whether a child is damaged by being raised in a gay home, and neither does anyone else. The problem here is that unless children actually live through the experience and can give society their commentary, we will continue to be flying in the dark. So, I have no idea what position society should take with regard to gay couples adopting children. I have to leave that to others. I can only speak for myself. I would not like to see the practice grow because I still think a mother (female) and father (male) are the best combination for preparing children for the society they will live in.

GAY MARRIAGE
Here, I probably agree with the majority of my peers in thinking that marriage is not really necessary in order for gay couples to live equally in their society. This belief is not based on factual information but on religious conviction. The proof of this is made clear every time someone tries to explain why they are for or against gay marriage. The explanations are always of the same kind -- it doesn't feel right to me; God doesn't want same sex marriages to exist; I think marriage is meant to be a union between a man and a woman.
The arguments are religious and philosophical. And, dear readers, that is the problem with gay marriages. Marriage is generally seen as a religious state, as a sacrament, that is agreed to by the state for health and governmental purposes (sexually transmitted disease control, keeping too close relatives from producing unwanted genetic results, taxation, state welfare services, testamentary passing on of property, etc).
In European countries, marriage is seen principally as a political function (the mayor performs the ceremony that is official and the religious ceremony, if the couple chooses to have one, is religious and not essential to the creation of the married state) and therefore the argument I just made might be weaker for Europeans.
But, in America, the vast majority of marriages are performed by clergy, with the approval of the state in the form of a marriage license (this allows the state to control the items listed above). Americans see marriage as a religious function. Therefore, when the state meddles in religion by telling clergy that they must marry gay couples, it is the basis for severe disagreements. This is the reason so many Ameircan states (about 2/3 of them) have had ballot propositions banning gay marriage -- it is to keep the state out of what these citizens see as a religious activity.
So, yes, gay marriages can exist where a majority of citizens want them to exist. But, when a majority of citizens do not want gay marriages, it is time for the state to "butt out" and stay away from divisive and unneeded arguments about religious beliefs that are not going to change, even if President Obama has made his view clear.