The very idea of courts presuming to have the authority to change natural law is the problem here. This shows just how run away the courts have become. They can no more order a change in natural law than they can order a fish to bark or decree that some men should fill in and act as women where there is a shortage of females. We have to win this one because if we don't the courts can order us to do anything that pleases them. There will be no true definition of the term marriage and in fact they will actually be changing the English language - how's that for arrogance?
How is marriage "natural law"?
It appears to me to be an institution created by man and the ursurped by the religious class (it exists in most cultures and is not the sole provence of Christians).
I have not yet heard a non-religious argument against civil unions. The idea is for people ot be able to make a permanent commitment to one another and to enjoy the benefits and protections the law offers two people who have chosen to do so.
"It's just not right" doesn' quite cut it for me as a reason to deny certain rights.
Once again, allow the churches to keep the instition of "marriage" holy, but civil unions hurt no one.