No, the problem with gay marriage is that we can't have it! How about THAT problem?
I would start by being less emotional.
Reread my post with this word in mind: "Libertarian."
I'm proposing a solution that takes government out of the equation. I'm not being anti-gay in any way and I am not discriminating against any religion. I live in a very rural area, so I am well aware of the limited options available in such places.
If I'm taking government marriage out of the equation, I would also take the benefits out of the equation. This goes along with a larger philosophy of how taxation should be done, but that's a separate discussion.
For concerns about property after death, adoption, and hospital visitations: my solution puts the responsibility on the individual.
It seems disingenuous to claim that making marriage a religious institution closes atheists out. If I were an atheist, I doubt I would marry in a church or temple or anything religious. I'd arrange a civil ceremony right now. If government is taken out of the equation, I could still arrange a commitment ceremony in front of friends and family.
I'll concede right now that you will win this argument. Homosexuals will be able to marry in this country. We can't yet, but it is coming along with all the governmental benefits and intrusion. You see, people like government intruding into marriage, even the socially conservative. My position is the unpopular one. Conservatives of most stripes and liberals like government intrusion, even though they may disagree with which types of intrusion are appropriate.
My views are unpopular with both sides.