I think it honestly depends on WHY one does not support SSM, not simply that they don't.
I know for you it's about protecting the sanctity of marriage, and the definition of the word, but honestly, nationally, that's not what this is about.
If it was that simple, then why not have a Federal Law permitting civil unions?
And if it should be down to the states, how come the Hawaiian governor vetoed a bill that would have granted civil unions?
Hawaiian governor vetoes civil unions bill | The Upshot Yahoo! News
Honestly, let it go. It's a word, and what marriage means to the Christian church, should not mean what marriage means to a neutral, and secular government.
Whatever ones feelings are around this subject, and I Know for some it can get quite dogmatic, swallow your pride, and lets let our gay brothers and sisters, who mean us no harm at all, become as miserable as the rest of us. Why should members of the same sex, have any less right to marry if they're in love, then a scummy straight couple that married for money?
Ideally speaking of course, religious dogma should not be used to deny people rights, DOMA Is a good example of this. There's no logical reason to deny gay people the right to marry, swallow your pride, and out dated definitions, change comes, don't get left behind.
That's the word, I stick to it.
Jetboogieman.