opponents of same-sex marriage say that marriage is only between one man and one woman. this is usually a result of religious beliefs. but who's to say they get to decide in law? if we're in the US, or another jurisdiction with no established religion, one religion (or more, for that matter) shouldn't get to determine the law on marriage.
when I'm talking about marriage, I'm referring to a legal union, rather than a religious or social one. if a certain church or religion doesn't want to recognize a certain union (such as a same-sex one) as "marriage", that's totally okay. but that doesn't mean a same-sex couple should be denied the benefits afforded by legal marriage
civil unions (many aliases; see the Wikipedia article) are the solution afforded by some jurisdictions to same-sex couples. but sometimes these don't afford all the same rights to "civilly united" couples as to married couples. but even if they did, why not just call it marriage? again, religion shouldn't get to decide what constitutes "marriage" when church and state are separated. i suppose maintaining this difference in terminology creates two separate but equal institutions...
wait a minute, doesn't that last phrase sound oddly familiar...? here's the Wikipedia article on that phrase to jog your memory. we've got quite some way to go...
