There is no legal discrimination here. A gay man is just as free to marry a woman as a straight man is, so attempts to tie this back to historical miscegenation laws are incorrect. But if we redefine marriage to say a man can "marry" another man, why stop there? Why can't he "marry" his mother? Or several people? Or his dog? What legal or moral theory would be used to deny these other "rights"?
So, you can share the rights we all share, provided that you do exactly what we tell you to do. Right? Why punish a the woman? Why punish the kids that would likely arise from such a situation? This will not diffuse the situation that has already been lit.
The laws, as presently written, do not mention gender - it was assumed. However, as we both know, these laws are being challenged and are being struck down because of this omission. So, we can stay the course and eventually lose everything - and make no mistake - we WILL lose.
Or, we can create a safety net; affording the gay community the same 'rights' as the rest of the population. Now, here's my hidden agenda. I want to see gay couples pay alimony, child support and other costs that the 'married' community enjoys. The life expectancy of a gay relationship is much, much shorter than the average straight couple's. So, if they demand 'marriage', then isn't it only fair that they also enjoy 'Divorce', 'Child support', and 'custody' battles too?
The facts are that more than one state now recognizes gay marriage; therefore, the battle is lost. A couple legally married in a state that recognizes gay marriage - it legally married in your state too. Just like my marriage to my wife is legal anywhere in the USA. I merely suggest an alternate method of allowing them to get the rights that they are suing for.