I wholly agree with the above two responses that advocate for the availability of a Civil Union that is legally available to all committed couples who wish to enter into such a contractual relationship. From a legal point of view, the members of these partnerships would have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities regardless of their race, creed or gender.
If the couple wished to become married inside of the church or other private religious belief, then that would be their right as private citizens. Furthermore, the government currently has no power to force a private religion to marry two people it does not wish to marry. That would not change, and the church that objects to gay marriage would not have to worry about the legal desecration of marriage, as it is defined in the bible, because from a legal point of view the gay couple would be considered civilly unionized as opposed to married.
One's views on religion and marriage are private and personal, which has been part of the philosophy of this country from the beginning. A democratic government comprised of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Mormons, atheists, agnostics, et al. has no business deciding who can be married anyways. If our country's history has taught us anything, we should have learned by now that the institutionalization of the disenfranchisement of unpopular minorities results in nothing much good.