You'll get no fight from me. I hate that kind of thing :0)
I definitely believe in a distinction between a union based on procreation and one simply based on love. I would call one "marriage" and the other "civil union" but I'd be open to Marriage vs. Matrimony or whatever.
At the risk of flame wars (in which I will not participate) I can see nothing in the Constitution that should bar gays from Constitutional rights. But that would be called a "civil union."
"Marriage" is a religious sacrament. If gays can find a church to sanction their marriage, fine. But the government has no right whatsoever to redefine the ages old definition of "marriage." None whatsoever.
I hold to the libertarian position of getting government out of the marriage business. I think that's where the problems begin.