I'm going to have to disagree with you here Ms. the Honey. Gay marriage is in it self nothing to be concerned about. Calling them 'married' is. It will change the meaning of the word, and not in a good way.

Don't believe me? Try wearing a rainbow pin the next time you go out, and see what people think of it. Or, how 'bout we go out and have a gay old time?

They should be able to join together in a union just like us, but it's not the same thing, so they should call it something else (don't care what).

But should the difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union" be codified by the state?

The state should treat us all equally--therefore, the only thing it is really qualified to proclaim is a civil union.

The state is treating us all equally right now. A gay man has just as much right to marry a woman as I do. What we are talking about is adding a right for men to marry other men. When creating this new right, there is no reason we have to give it a name that is already taken (like marriage). Unless you consider it identical, which I don't.

On the other hand, changing the legal term for all marriages to civil unions seems fair enough if it is important to try to gloss over the differences between heterosexual and homosexual coupling.

But living in California, you know that most homosexuals try very hard to not be the same as straight people. I would have thought that giving their unions a special name would be desirable by them, if the legal implications were the same.

(This would all be the same if you switched out 'men' and 'women' and lesbian for gay man, but I was trying to save typing :))

The state already codifies us, and does NOT treat us all equally (see: affirmative action, set-asides, illegal immigrants paying few if any taxes vs legal citizens forced to pay taxes, money buying the best justice possible, tenure granted-not granted due to political stance at state-and-federal funded colleges and universities, etc). There are more instances if you really think about it. Equality is in the eye of the beholder, more than in actuality.