Homosexual unions can be recognized in other ways than through an institution defined in a restrictive way by tradition.

The legal protections of marriage can be reproduced through a series of contracts and agreements. It's a pain, but it can be done, especially if it becomes standard prectice to allow the each employee to specify who his or her beneficiaries are in an employee health plan. (One can already name any person, or the family pet, to receive one's death benefit.) Nobody's rights would be trodden on. Nobody would have to rile up the religious by calling it marriage. It would just be one in effect, that's all.

We can call it a "civil union". Or maybe we can call it "Loretta".

Marriage merely includes automatically all the things that would have to be planned, negotiated and agreed upon in a "civil union", so it's easier to run off and marry spontaneously, without having to spare much thought in the heat of passionate love. Wait a minute... which one sounds saner to you?

Regards--
Mary Anne