I think that a great majority of people in America and in the world associate the word "marriage" with "a man and a woman as husband and wife", and understandably so.
I don't think, however, that most of them have a problem with homosexuals having committed relationships and receiving equal socioeconomic and geopolitical treatment under the law with regard to their relationship with the state.
I do think, however, that a majority of these people have a problem with the word "marriage" being misused out of context of the long-established traditional humanity instutitution framework.
Thus if the "gay marriage" movement simply changed their terminology, calling their civil union domestic partnership "homarriage" instead of "marriage", the great majority of so-called "traditional marriage" supporters would be happy.
However, the problem with this is that it's easier said than done, as the reason the "gay marriage" movement exists is that all they would have to do to get that equal socioeconomic and geopolitical treatment under the law with regard to their relationship with the state, their real bottom line issue, is to successfully redefine the word marriage in the eyes of the state, whereas creating a new-termed "homarriage" civil union domestic partnership in all 50 states and whatever else federal requirements too, well, that could take scores of years to do.
And it would take scores of years to do because really only around two percent, according to a recent study posted here at DP earlier this year, I think it was, two percent of the population is exclusively homosexual to the "gay/lesbian" degree that they would even consider marriage, and thus the cause undertaken "properly" would fail like an "orphaned drug", lacking the necessary massive support for success.
So the leaders of the "gay marriage" movement have taken what they deem to be the shortcut of redfining marriage, the only real chance for success and success soon .. much to the "don't steal our tradition from us" objection of much, much greater numbers of people who don't want their institution of marriage sullied.
I have no idea how this problem will get resolved so that both sides are happy and non-damaged in the process.
But each side would do well not to instill animosity in the other regardless of the outcome.
If there was some way for both sides to get together and make a concerted effort to achieve what both sides really want, I doubt there would be any legislative force that would stand in their way from accomplishing their goal very soon.