What more can you want? I've explained how it isn't just a difference in wording and it isn't just a difference in social rituals. It is a legal difference with real world consequences. As I asked before what benefit is there to having identical legal protections going under two different names, one for heterosexual couples and one for homosexual couples? The damage is that such an arrangement is unconstitutional and 'separate but equal' is complete shit in practice but I fail to see any benefit from what you're proposing. If you think that those who oppose gay marriage will give in to completely equal legal protections for marriage and civil unions you'd be wrong. Reactionaries will fight that just as hard. If you accept a civil union that offers 90% of the same legal protection as marriage getting that last 10% will be no easier than just getting gay marriage recognized in the first place. Not getting that 10% is unacceptable. You propose to take a legally confusing and unconstitutional route to accomplish what can and should be accomplished by simply recognizing gay marriages. It isn't that I have some emotional attachment to the concept of marriage. It is the simple fact that discrimination in issuing marriage licenses by the state based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional just as it is for drivers licenses, business licenses, and fishing licenses. That is the type of society we here. The alternative is to have the state approve or disapprove marriage licenses based on a conflicting set of social norms that vary regionally. The right-wingers wouldn't accept the state interfering in their right to marriage (rightfully I might add) so they have to accept that this right extends to everyone. Tough shit if someone doesn't like it.
John Thornton