I agree with you, and that's why you've got to work to make sure that your state doesn't accept it. Unless we can get these things down to the local level where we can control them, and we have a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage itself, the courts are going to start imposing this on us.
If abortion had not been imposed by judicial fiat but had been left up to the states, it would still have been a contentious issue: but in the great majority of states, it would have been rejected or at least severely limited. The same is true of the "civil unions" issue: it's got to be worked out at the state level, and I think most states would have a very restrictive view of it, particularly if people like you get out and fight it.
You are right, but Bush messed up in this interview. He sounds like he favors them. He claims there is a difference and I would like to know exactly what that difference is other than a one word versus a two word title. The point in the Amendment is functional because you cannot allow a choice if you call it by the same name. It also defines it for the federal government. But civil unions are the same things as marriages. And Bush is a fool to use the word "rights" and the phrase "same rights as others." He concedes the entire legal debate with that terminology. He should have said "benefits," which can be given at will, rather than "rights" which are required to be equal. All government programs discriminate in that they define benefits for some and not for others according to an agreed upon criteria. All persons have the opportunity to participate within the defined parameters. But when we start saying that all people have the "right" to the same benefits and must be included in the definition so as not to discriminate, what gov't program could stand up as written? Social Security is age discrimination as is K-12 schooling. Welfare defines some people in and some people out. So does social services. So does the tax code. Why does the gov't give "unearned income credit" to others and not to me just because I am in a different income class? Actually, I'm not in a different income class, but I am discriminated against just because I AM married.
The whole "rights" argument is stupid. Homosexuals are not barred from marriage. They just have to keep to the same rules as everyone else. They must marry one person of the opposite sex.