[I, Brian]

I really think we need to define "marriage", because there's the religious ceremony, and the secular tradition, which bother overlap the term.

Gay religious ceremony weddings? Only if the religious group in question actually sanctions it. It's a striclty religious question.

Gay civil unions? No problem. It's a strictly secular issue.

Do we need to use the term "gay marriage" or "civil union" though?

Also - the promotion of "gay marriages" rides roughshod over a larger minority group - "common-law" partnerships, which I'm advised technically assures no legal rights in having a recognised partnerships.

It would be nice to see the law address the wider issue of what consitutes a union recognised by the state, rather than distract into high-profile minority cases, that leaves the wider questions unanswered.