Mother Jones article on Iowa and gay marriage
Without going into the merits of whether any particular faith should recognize gay marriage (which should be up to each individual institution to determine for itself), I have always thought that legally, under the concept and Constitutional right of equal protection under the law, there was no justification to prevent gay marriage.
Strangely, this is one area where my father and I have agreed, while coming at it from two different rationales. To him, the answer is to get government out of marriage altogether, and leave it entirely to religious (or analogous institutions, for those who aren't theists of any stripe) to work out marriage. I even managed to convince him that there would have to be some sort of civil situation that would be the same as civil marriage now, but open to any two consenting adults (he thought that powers of attorneys and other things would be able to take care of it, but my experience in the legal profession has shown me that it's not really a workable solution). Either solution works for me - both result in fully equal standings, regardless of sexual orientation.
To be honest, I might even prefer my father's solution, as I've often had trouble with the conflict between the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and the civil marriage rules that have conflicted, most notably, with the polygamy allowed within both the Islamic faith and the first few years of the Mormon faith. Again, I understand the many arguments from a sociological standpoint about the potential of abuse in plural marriages, but I still remain troubled by First Amendment conflicts regarding free exercise and other laws. (By the by, I have the same problem with the conflict between drug laws and some faiths, as well - yes, I'm a libertarian in a liberal's body.)
