What is the fuss over gay marriage? Is it the idea of same sex union, or is it the term 'marriage'?

In the UK we have 'civil partnerships' for gay couples which, to the best of my knowledge, gives the same rights and has the same legal status as marriage while acknowledging that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That seems acceptable to just about most rational people.

I think in the US the primary "hang up" is with application of the term "marriage."

However, there is a considerable amount of discussion about the legal contract of "civil unions" since they don't, for the most part, give the same rights and legal status to homosexuals as "marriages" give to heterosexuals...especially at the federal level.

You see, the situation in the UK, which I support absolutely, is that homosexuality is acceptable and normal, but that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore allow gay couples to have the same status and legal rights, but not a marriage.

It actually works very well because most people (myself included) refer to such couples as 'married' but the law allows for the history and sanctity of marriage.

Here's something else.

Why not call all partnerships 'unions' regardless of gender, then if a man and a woman want to have a marriage blessed by their religion, then they can do that.

Unions, regardless of the sexuality of the couples, are equal under the law. They are performed by a licensed person and filed with the county as a union certificate.

I agree with you 100%.

There are plenty of countries where religious weddings have no legal status. I know my cousin 'married' twice in Italy, the first was the legal documentation which is all fairly low key and simply a matter of paperwork. From that point he was legally married although the church ceremony was several days later and for him personally that was his marriage, the first part was merely the formalities.

DING DING DING DING!!! We have logic ladies and gentlemen. I agree completely Knot_E.

Here in America we can't differentiate between marriage and civil unions because that would mean our government is favoring a relgious view, which is not acceptable in a secular system.

I am for calling them all civil unions in the eyes of our government and letting churches decide who they want to "marry".

This is an idea I have always liked.

I believe if "civil unions" were the legal equivalent to "marriages" in the US, at both the state and federal levels, then this situation would likely be acceptable to many people in the US.

However, they aren't the same for the most part, legally speaking, at either the federal or state level.

(I believe this situation also highlights the differences between the UK and US government structures...being that states have a certain level of autonomy in the US.)