Married Gay Partners / Why not?

Today the supreme court decided that gay partners have the same legal rights as straight married people, and the court avoided defining marriage by suggesting it's a personal, not legal, matter. After the ruling there is still considerble opposition. For some people the tradition is all important. Not for me. I believe the court's decision makes sense.   It is interesting to note that most of the opposition togay marriage comes from members of the Catholic Church, and others  who are against anything that sounds like approval or recognition of gay marriage.  I don't understand their argument. The Holy Bible talks about "marriage" - without any clear comment regarding gender. Does that not suggest that prohibition of gay couples is no more than a churches theological construction?  


For me the definition of "marriage" accepts the man-woman tradition. 

            (1) It acknowledges the natural means of procreation. 

            (2) It is the historic, traditional and accepted concept.

            (3) In civil societies around the world, including ours, 
                 marriage is  the most beneficial foundation of a family. 

Notice that my definition does not prohibit any description.

I BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE COMPLETE SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND OTHER EQUALITY IN THE UNION (MARRIAGE) OF GAY PARTNERS.

Gay people have been (wrongly) stigmatized for centuries. There has been, and continues to be, a prejudice of varying intensity attached to being gay.  Advocates suggest that if the word "marriage" were to include gay partners, the legal benefits of being married would  be equal, pedjudice would be reduced, and the social acceptance of gay people would improve.  My question is: 

"So who is hurt by changing the definition of marriage to include gay partners?"