I agree that marriage should mean the sacred bonding of the two genders.
And I know fully that others disagree with this. I feel that they may not like the idea of "civil union" instead of marriage because they want the real deal; they would feel like they are being rejected. And yes, I reject that perversion of marriage, but I think as a legal right, it should stand as a civil union.
Considering marriage as a social event is an Abrahamic institution and all three Abrahamic religions are expressly against homosexuality, it cannot be considered actual marriage.
That said, government economic factors are having an influence on marriage, and homosexuals who wish to have the same economic status for their own union do believe that (since it is now government regulated) they should have the same rights.
Ergo, take a note from Frederick and change the wording. If the government does not express it as institutional marriage, than no mandate regulating the practices of the church has occurred.
Likewise, homosexuals are now free to reap the economic and civil benefits of union.
I see no reason why supporters of gay marriage would accept that. I can understand religious people being all offended since they see it as a sacred thing, but why should any religion accept any religions but their own form of marriage. If this was a ultra bigoted Christian nation (for example) why would they allow Muslim marriages to happen? Wouldn't they likely prefer to call them civil unions? Little bit off topic.
For the hard line supporters of gay marriage, they would only accept it to be recognized as a marriage not just something similar to it. For those who are on the opposite end, any respect given to a homosexual relationship is never acceptable. Basically, this is only a compromise that only those in the middle would agree with.