No, not really. Many people support gay marriage. Most people do not. Ergo, no gay marriage.
Miller,
Are you assuming that churches would not be allowed to marry people? Or that people who prefer JP marriages to church marriages are the ones who would feel that something was taken from them? In other words, what is wrong with a system that says marriage is the province of the church, while civil unions are the province of government?
It’s not that I’m not grateful to anyone who posts in a thread I started but, er, the OP isn’t actually about gay marriage ya know.
I would have thought folks would have been happy to talk about an issue of gay rights that wasn’t about marriage, just for a change 
.
So they’re not telling Fred to move his church to Antartica, then?
The problem with is the enourmous propaganda value such a proposal would hand to those opposed to giving homosexual relationships any sort of official recognition, regardless of what term is used. As it stands now, the only thing the various gay rights organizations are asking for is the same thing heterosexuals have. And it is still be portrayed by the opposition as “Gays are trying to destroy marriage.” Can you imagine what they could do if major gay rights organizations started advocating this proposal? People place an enormous amount of emotional significance in the word “marriage.” So much so that most Americans are against letting gays marry, but in favor of giving them civil unions which grant them all the same rights as marriage, just so long as we don’t get to call it marriage. There’s nothing wrong with the idea of getting the government out of marriage. It’s a rational, equitable, and simple solution to the problem. That’s why it’ll never fly in the US.
Also, when I said “us” I meant members of this message board, as I thought that was the context of fushj’s comment. We could ALL advocate that policy and still be just a tiny minority in this country (the USA, that is).