An excellent solution Eleaneth. My own mental struggles with the issue have arrived at pretty much the same place.
Unfortunately, in other forums, when I bring up the idea of removing government's role in 'marriage' altogether (leaving 'marriage' solely to religious institutions and 'civil unions' solely to government) I have met with frothy hatred from the proponents of same-sex marriage. From what I've seen and been told with great force, same-sex couples "Don't want civil unions, they want to be 'married'"
I'm curious to the opinions around here. What is the same sex objection to marriage=religious civilunion=government proposal?
I suspect in some of the cases I've run across it's nothing more than a desire to stick it to those hateful bigoted straights, hah, look at me I'm gay and MARRIED how do you like them apples?
Is there a more reasoned objection?
I think it's more of a "second class citizen" thing. That is, if they cant get *MARRIED* like everyone else, then they have to choose the alternative that they're restricted to, "Civil-Unions", which makes them feel discriminated against.
Personally, though, that wouldn't matter to me. If for whatever reason i wasnt allowed to get "Married", but i had the option for a "Civil-union", i'd do it. The reasoning would be like this: Does it function exactly like marriage, insofar as legal and fiscal obligations, and are we recognized as being "Together" and all that? If yes, then that's fine with me. A label doesnt mean anything to me, but im sure it does very much so to others.
Though, i wouldnt mind at all if "Marriage" became regulated by each individual religion, and "Civil-union" became a governmental thing. Personally, I think that's how it should be, anyways. Keeps religion out of the government, and the specifics of marriage is left up to the religion that governs their particular version, and the government can hand out the generic versions for those who don't care/can't.