>>SNIP
>>
>
>Marriage is an institution. It is a formal relationship between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a man and a sheep, etc. Two men living together can be called a "civil union", but not a marriage.
>

The requirement of "man and woman" is, at least in my opinion, a religious one -- not a legal one. I have no objections to clergy refusing to perform a marriage between a gay couple.

I see far more merit in a gay couple actually honoring their marriage vows than in a hetero couple who will be breaking theirs within a year.

If a man and woman go to a JP (in Florida it can even be a Notary Public), have they been joined in a "Civil Union" or a "Marriage"? There are certain connotations to each expression. In my case, I certainly felt "MARRIED" even though without benefit of clergy. I would be offended to have it considered a "Civil Union." It is an expression of our commitment to each other, not entered into lightly, and enduring through better and worse...etc., etc. etc. To fail to accord the same term and connotations to a committed gay couple minimizes what the word actually represents (again, my opinion).