A very powerful post, mama bear!

@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - I can see why you feel that way, but in this case the government is legislating a very personal issue. I think it's hard to take emotion out of this argument. Because, in fact, it's not any different from the interracial marriage issue. Of course people are going to consider it bigotry when you tell them that their marriage is less legitimate than yours.

You can say you don't hate it, or that you don't fear it. But then you follow up by saying that you just believe it's wrong. You say you don't judge it, but that we should still legislate around it. You can say that you have perfectly legitimate political and legal reasons for being in favor of "traditional marriage". But for the gay people who want to get married and who want to adopt a child, all it's going to sound like is "your relationship is not as good as my relationship." And that feels like hate.

And here's the thing. The argument only exists within the realm of the law and government. Religions, by definition, are going to proscribe rules for morality. Of course you are going to feel judged by a religion, that's the point. I am Jewish, so many Christians will say my beliefs and practices are wrong. I am a Jew who married a non-Jew, that means that people in more conservative sects of my religion believe that my Jewish wedding was not, in fact, Jewish, and that my marriage is not a Jewish marriage. However, if I moved to Israel, while the religious authorities would tell me my Ketubah (marriage contract) isn't valid, and that my marriage isn't Jewish, they would still recognize my marriage as legally and civilly valid. It would be recognized by the state of Israel. 
So, I will say again that the best way to "save" traditional marriage is the same way that we provide marriage equality. We simply take the government out of the equation entirely. Then your religion can have it's own stance on what makes a legitimate marriage. There are plenty of Rabbis that wouldn't have officiated my wedding because my husband isn't Jewish, and while if I think about that I would say that this is a bit hurtful, I didn't have to bother arguing about it, because I just went and found a Rabbi that WOULD marry me, and so it was live and let live. 

@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - Of course it was an emotional issue! And while there were lots of well-thought political writings, they were also peppered with some pretty mean-spirited jabs at the Brits!

The reasoning behind gay marriage is absolutely political. The government recognizes and provides benefits to one type of relationship, but not another. Gay people are being treated differently under the law. No reason to bring people or bigotry into the argument at all. 

Allowing gay people to be married under the law, and allowing their relationship to be recognized in the same way that heterosexual relationships are recognized under the law does NOT infringe on your religious freedom. You are still free to believe that gay marriages aren't legitimate or "real" marriages, and Priests, Pastors, Rabbis, and ship captains, can still freely refuse to marry people of the same gender. A judge, however, as an agent of the government, would not be allowed to refuse to marry two people of the same gender. That's what the change would mean (even better would be if we took the government out of marriage altogether and just produced civil contracts between people for legal reasons... then you can go get married under whatever religious umbrella exists and your marriage is purely a private union). 

Gay marriage, furthermore, does not at all infringe on your right to free speech. So I am not even sure what the heck you are talking about.

Let's look at the text of the first amendment, shall we?
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Wouldn't an amendment to the constitution that defines marriage as being a union between a man and a woman actually BE the establishment of religion. Some religions believe that this is the definition of marriage, but the government cannot establish that in law. Congress would not be establishing a religion by saying that gay relationships should be treated the same under the law. In fact, the government would be getting rid of a religious definition of marriage. Your religion would still be free to deem homosexual marriages illegitimate under that religion. Just like conservative and orthodox Jews can tell me that my marriage is not a Jewish or proper marriage, since I married a non-Jew. However, they cannot tell me that my marriage is not a legitimate CIVIL marriage.
2. or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
Gay marriage does not infringe on your right to express your opinion on gay marriage, nor does it interfere with freedom of the press. 
3. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 
If gay marriage is made legal, you would still have the right to assemble and protest this change, if you so choose.
I am not sure AT ALL how these are incompatible. Even if you religiously believe that gay people should not be allowed to marry, you cannot say that by the government allowing gay people to marry, they are forcing you into that religion. Is the government forcing you to marry gay people? Is the government forcing you to tell your children that they are allowed to marry someone of the same gender? No! The government is allowing people with different beliefs than you (people who believe that gay marriage is OK) to practice THEIR beliefs without discrimination.
But, again, THE BEST THING WOULD BE TO JUST ERADICATE THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AS A CIVIL INSTITUTION. Then marriage and its definitions would be completely personal and religious. Why aren't more people on board with this idea? Why are we letting the government define and license our personal relationships and religious marriages in the first place? Weirdest thing: I got married in December and my marriage certificate says that I got married in a religious ceremony. Why does it say that? Why does that matter to the government in the first place?

Well first of all, I didn't say anything about sex or sexual preferences. I am talking about civil relationships where two people decide to commit to each other and establish as social contract in which they share property, have hospital visitation and end-of-life rights, etc.

But, trying to wrap my head around your question and not dodge it...yes, I believe that the government should allow unions between people no matter their sexual preferences and no matter the race, gender, or religion of each person. I am not sure what sort of kinky sexual preferences you are dreaming up, but let me try an think of where I would find exception to this rule...
1. Non-consensual relationships- since the government would be respecting the rights of one citizen over another (the non-consensual partner). This is includes relationships with minors (a 40 year-old cannot marry a 12-year old), since the minor is not a consenting adult. So this takes care of rapists and pedophiles. 
2. Relationships between men/women and animals. Since animals are non US citizens, I don't see how we can include them in civil contracts.
What I could see as being acceptable: 
1. Polygamous or Poly amorous unions- I can't see why we shouldn't allow groups of people to unite under civil marriage contracts if they want to share property, etc.- who are we to stop them?
2.  Relationships between relatives- Don't get me wrong. I get this one is controversial. But let's take the sex out of marriage, shall we, because when it comes to the law we are simply talking about a civil contract. If two spinster sisters want to unite under the law for taxation purposes and to ensure proper inheretence/make things a little easier for shared property. Then why not? 
This does NOT mean that I condone incest. I am not talking about laws against incest. There are good reasons for those laws, not the least of which because incestuous relationships are A. Often non-consensual and B. can produce offspring with all sorts of health issues. So, if a woman is in love with their brother then, yes, I guess they should be allowed to marry, but that wouldn't mean they were allowed to have sex. Incest laws would remain intact. But that's the same way it is now. We no longer have laws against homosexual sex because those laws infringe on privacy, but we still have laws against incest because it is dangerous!
Are there specific sexual preferences to which you are referring that I didn't touch on here?

@Gabrielle Rose Swanwick@facebook - Thank you! I usually try to stay out of public debates like this unless I have heard enough arguments for both sides to develop a well-though-out stance for one side or another. This is something I have thought very hard about and I I'm glad you see my reasoning. I know that it's important for people to hear logical arguments for both sides, and I myself have heard great arguments for the pro-traditional marriage side, though I still think that the best solution for those arguments would be to get rid of the idea of legal marriage altogether.