Please read this post carefully as I will likely be taking an unpopular position, but I will do my best to explain myself clearly. I am against gay marriage, because in my view marriage is a religious union. With out getting into that whole Adam and Eve vs Adam and Steve stupidity I am in favor of Gay civil unions. The whole issue I think stems from the wording, gay marriage scares the Bible belt for reasons that we are all aware of, many view the issue as an attack on Christian Values. However if two people are willing to commit to each other why shouldnt they be allowed to be joined legally, with all the benefits and handicaps that are associated with marriage. I honestly think that the gay community could benefit from a change in nomenclature; it may prove to be more productive in establishing legal rights and keeping religion out of the debate. Now feel free to misread, twist words and attack.
I read your post carefully, and this is not an attack. I do feel that I have to point out that, even with your disclaimers, your choice of words seems to put a tone in your post that you may not have even intended.
Now, without twisting your words and attacking, let me propose this: I'm absolutely fine with the concept of reserving the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, and "union" for homosexual couples - but ONLY if the government completely pulls out of the marriage business. No joint income tax filing, no "spouse as dependent" status, no spousal privilege in trials, nothing. No government recognition of marriage at all. If marriage is to be retained only as a religious designation, that's fine. The government should not support that creation of a "privilege class", and in fact, has no legal basis for doing so.
Even in those states where same-gender marriage is "legal", the government does all it can to favor heterosexuals in marriage and property matters. In the states where "civil unions" have been instituted, those unions are second-class entities compared to marriage. In California, where "civil union registry" has been instituted, courts have routinely disregarded the law, without reprisal.
Until same-gender couples actually get the FULL BENEFITS and full rights and responsibilities as opposite-gender couples, I do have a problem with it. Separate and inequal just is not acceptable to me. Federal and state laws provide over 1,400 legal and financial rights to persons who fit the legal definition of "married." Those rights and protections, by definition, simply do not extend to "civil partners."