RTFM yourself, Mr. Chill:
"That situation can be avoided if (1) there many alternative ways of expressing one's subjective feelings, e.g. various forms of socially accepted informal unions, so people have various means of 'confirming and expressing' their mutual feelings that do not entail entering a legally binding contract. If they choose to enter such a contract, however, they can be clearly informed by a disclosure statement (akin to that on the back of a credit card application) outlining the basic consequences of their agreement, such is financial and legal responsibilities, as well as other restrictions (e.g. exclusive rights to sexual gratification, if that option is selected), and explicitly informing that entering such a contract is not tantamount to 'marriage' or any other subjectively defined form of interpersonal relationship.
"That solution would also solve the confusion regarding homosexual marriages, group marriages, etc., which again stems from mixing subjective interpretations with legal contracts. Anyone could enter a legally sanctioned civil union contract - including two or more people of same or different sex - but in order to be 'married' as defined by this or that religious tradition, they would need to file a separate application to a religious or cultural institution that hold the copy rights to bestowing that particular title.
"That would eliminate a lot of nonsensical and pointless cultural wars that now pollute public debates in this country.
Wojtek"
Translation: "Gays, stop polluting our debates by demanding state-sanctioned marriage."