Marriage is the holy union between one man and one woman, always has been, always will be. I've got no problem with two men or two women pledging their everlasting love to each other, but it ain't a "marriage." A marriage is what it is...period.
If gay couples want to exchange vows, call it something else--how 'bout "coupling"?--and then go about the process of attaching whatever legal rights gays feel they are being denied to the term "coupling". I'll tell you right now that I'm against gays adopting, but I don't see where other rights can't be passed on relatively quickly.
FReegards...MUD
Next one's yers, dude...MUD
Wow, who woulda thunk it? You have the same position on gay marriage as Kerry. I'm going to have to send you a Liberal Starter Kit pretty soon! =P
Personally, I'm to the left of Kerry on this issue. Marriage is a sin in Christianity, but not all marriages are Christian (plus, marriage was an institution before Christianity was a religion). So a non-Christian ceremony is fine, or even a common law marriage.
If you allow them to marry but make them call it something different, you're opening up the whole "separate but equal" terms that fueled racial discrimination before the civil rights movement. (For example, giving them health insurance benefits, but giving them less coverage for so-called "gay diseases" such as AIDS). Call a spade a spade and let them get "married", I say.