As frustrating as it is, it can’t really be that big a suprise, can it? Marriage is a religious institution, controlled by folks bent on their own agenda, meanwhile SSM advocates are telling the religious folks how THEY are gonna (or at least should) react around SS couples, and what THEIR rules OUGHT to be.
Im for people getting whatever it is they wish for, but in earnest, I don’t see the screaming need to call it “marriage” when civil unions are a sufficient replacement. If the legal societal protections exist within the scope of civil unions (and they may not, I don’t know, somebody fight my ignorance if I’m wrong) then why the semantic hangups?
IMO the “Church” et. al, is kind of a private club. You join, take some classes, give their deity access to your very soul, show up once a week dressed nice, hand over wads and wads of your hard earned money, and they promise, along with the best real estate in only the finest cemetaries (for yet another fee) eternal salvation and the greatest reward in the known universe. Only one catch, you have to sleep with the opposing sex, make lots of little believers, and you have to follow rules and dictactes that the head guys in the club make up, or interpret, or guess about, and you’ve got to do it, because if you don’t , and should you happen to have a safe fall on you whilst walking down street, that deity, the one with access to your very soul, will push the down button, and send the aforementioned soul, via the down escalator, to burn in a fiery lake for all of eternity, or until the Cubs win the World Series.
If you can get everything you need from civil unions, I say take it, and let the nutters have their “marriage”. The whole concept is outmoded and arcane anyhow.