Legal benefits for couples, who are together for the purpose of procreation, are something altogether different.
We need to clean the language up on this. Gays should be allowed a "civil union" type thing. To call it a "marriage" and to try to equate it with a breeding pair is logically ridiculous.
I agree in general, the language dealing with the way marriages/civil unions are handled should be cleaned up. Let them (gays) have a civil union, as well as heterosexual couples who do not believe in/want marriage, but want the benefits. I'm fine with it since I consider that more of a legal/financial issue than anything and the states can/should regulate the way civil unions are handled since that gets into matters that are handled by the states (insurance, financial, etc.).
At the other end, discussing marriage, I think the government should stay out of it. You shouldn't have to get a license (i.e. the state's permission) to marry somebody, especially when handled in a religious context (which is where marriage belongs). Marriage belongs in God's realm, not the state's realm.
You are both correct and incorrect. There are certain rules regarding marriage for the church (or 'a' church) to recognize a marriage as valid.
There are also certain laws and regulations that must be followed in order for a marriage to be recognized as valid by the government.