If we're going to allow that, we should have civil unions for threesomes and foursomes. And we should have civil unions for people who aren't even sexually involved with one another. They just happen to room together and claim to be fond of one another, so why not give them the benefits of married couples? If it's what they desire, shouldn't we give it to them? After all, that seems to be the criterion these days.
The only solution to the public schools propagandizing the kids on homosexuality is for society to become healthy and sane again, and that means coming right out and saying that homosexual relationships are unnatural and, to be blunt, are no damned good. Saying they're just as good as marriage, but are slightly different so we give them civil unions instead of marriages, is just a short term tactic the left is using to lure some conservatives in for the kill. Civil unions will never last, for obvious reasons. They're "separate but equal", and liberals will never allow that the stand in the long run.
Once you concede that homosexual couples deserve all the rights and privileges of marriage except the name, you've lost the battle and same-sex "marriage" will eventually become law.
Depending upon where you live, the battle is already lost. And given that a legal contract in one state, is legal in another state (ie. my wife and I are married in UT, we are also married in Texas), a gay married couple could move in next door to you and there is not a thing you could do about it.
I'm thinking a head of the curve. A church is tax exempt, the church does not pay taxes on it's property, nor on the tithing it receives. One could argue, that by virtue of receiving a tax exempt status - it is being supported by the taxpayers. After all, the church receives the benefits of police, fire, water, sewage and road benefits that every other institution pays taxes to support, right? So, the next thought would be that if a taxpayer funded institution is denying a group of citizens the sacriment would result in that church being sued for discrimination.
Would the Gay movement like to bankrupt as many churches as they could? Would they directly attack a church that refused to allow big gala weddings? We both know they would. I simply suggest we allow another way for these people to get the same legal protection afforded everyone else. Hopefully, this will bypass a situation that would be detrimental to our freedom of worship.