Option 5. with a caveat.

The state governments can only issue civil unions to a pair of legal adults for the purposes of exchanging property and creating joint households (like taxation, child custody, etc). Then, simply expedite the name-change process for civil unions who have chosen to go the traditional route of marriage (woman takes man's name, flowers, laughter, etc).

There, now everybody is happy.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Would the name-change process deal be only for heterosexual couples?

__________________
01100001 01101000 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101100 01101100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01100101 01111000 01110101 01110011 00111111

No, it'd be for anybody interested. Usually it's the traditional marriage crowd that harps up that point, so I listed them specifically. But no, any civilly joined couple should have an expedited name-change (relative to simple desires for name-changes by individuals, which should be investigated a bit more thoroughly).

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

I say get religion out of the institution of marriage. They muscled in on that long standing state interest and are now demanding monopoly powers.

When religions lose their religious influence over society, they will always seek to expand their power over secular matters instead.

The government should get out of the marriage business entirely - including these so-called "civil unions" (which is just another name for marriage). If people want to enter into these kinds of couplings (marriage/civil unions - regardless of whether it's an opposite-sex couple or a same-sex couple), that's their business - they should not be given any special rights or recognitions based on such couplings.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

you are obviously quite young, and have no idea the ramifications that take place with couples who do not have the legal rights, recognitions, and responsibilities that are afforded to married couples.

__________________


"No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities."

...Christian Nestell Bovee

Listen, it all boils down to equal rights. Christianity does not own marriage. Pagans in Rome had marriage before the rise of christianity. So it boils down to equality. So grant legal marriage to everyone. That is the way that people will be equal. In theory, the government getting rid of marriage altogether is good, but that would just make people say something like "Damn gays made it so that I couldnt be married to my wife".

You are obviously quite wrong.

Why must governments grant special rights and recognitions to people based on their choice to enter into certain relationships (in this case, marriage; keep in mind I'm referring to both gay and straight relationships)? Many of the special recognitions can be addressed through legal contracts such as power of attorney, living wills, etc.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Why should anyone (gay, straight or otherwise) be granted special rights and recognitions based on their choice to couple?

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

I have reservations about this. Too many religious fanatics want to exclude gay people from participation in religious ceremonies and access to church communities.

If I were gay, I'd sue the *** off them for trying to deprive me of my civil rights...everyone has the right to pursuit of happiness...Religion is not of interest to me, but there have been examples where gay people were so traumatized by religious exclusion that they have committed suicide.

IMO they should have the same right to marry as anyone else.