I asked the same type question in Great Debates a while back.
Some people seem to be really bothered by the idea.
traditional marriage to heck.
-
Not only would I not mind, I am totally in favor of it. If bigots want to keep “marriage” steeped in their discriminatory, backward religions, let them have it - I want no part of it. If the word marriage is so inextricably entangled in religion, the government should steer clear of it.
-
No. My only concern with the government’s treatment of my pair bond is that I have legal protections traditionally associated with it. If it weren’t for that, I probably wouldn’t have bothered getting official imprimatur (especially considering it was a total PITA and involved a blood draw).
Who is the very vocal special interest, gays who simply wish not to be discriminated against, or intolerant religious fucks who want to dictate how other people conduct their lives? 
I’m still not getting it. Why does a traditional marriage in every aspect besides one partner finding both men and women attractive make it non-traditional?
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m somewhere in that continuum but am not offended. I’m honestly curious.
When I spent some time in Switzerland, one woman told me she was totally astonished by the fact that religious officials could perform weddings. There, a wedding a civil contract that has a lot to do with dividing property and so on and a religious ceremony is a voluntary act that has nothing to do with it.
Honestly, my preference is for allowing gays to marry and be done with it. But my answer to the second question is that no, it wouldn’t bother me in the least. I just think it an inefficient way to do it.
I think it’s absolutely the right solution. Two people get together: if they want certain benefits (health, life insurance, whatever) they go register with the law. If they’re religious and they want to commemorate their union within the church, they go to the church and get married.
The problem will be coming up against the attitude that a civil union doesn’t mean as much in society as a marriage–I think they’d be of equal importance, but that might wander into a debate about how much religion matters in society.
And it sucks that gay and lesbian people can’t get married in the church. It really, really does. But that’s something the church needs to work on–the government needs to extend the same rights to all couples, no matter what.
(Insert synagogue, mosque, or your place of worship for church where applicable, obviously.)
What’s this “Gay people can’t get married in a church.” thing?
Gay people can get a sanctified marriage, in a church, by a priest (insert other religious terms as appropriate). It just doesn’t mean anything legally.
I’m bothered by it. What is the point? - if it means the same thing, why does the terminology need to change? If it does not mean the same thing, I object to it being retrospectively applied to me.