My point was that the words, 'marry' and 'matrimony' have been reserved and protected by copywrite and can't be used to define a contract between two people of the same sex. The state is not at liberty to infringe on the copywrite by changing the definition of those words. Nor is the church. That's why I suggested they invent a new word to describe their contract.
If the state wants to use the same logic as it did to recognize (not grant) the rights of freed slaves with the 14th Amendment, I suppose they can do something similar to free up and recognize the gay community's claim for a contractual union without actually calling it 'marriage' or 'matrimony.'
I have to give you points for originality here, that's one I've never heard before.