Sometimes you have to upset someone to do the right thing.

I'm sure slave owners were upset when we abolished slavery, but we did it anyway because it was the right thing to do.

I think the government one should call it "civil unions" (or whatever) for everyone, and the churches can call it whatever they want. Gay people can still get "married" if they belong to a religious institution that "marries" gay couples; same with heterosexual couples.

Some gay people I know say they don't really care what it's called as long as they get the exact same rights. Of course others may disagree.

But then there's non-religious people who want to be married without the religious aspect. "civil union" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. That could be a problem.

How about "marriage" and "marriage~" ("marriage prime")?

Once the legal separation between civil and religious marriage is properly made, the semantic issue automatically becomes less contentious because of the differences between religious groups. That is, marriage1 will no longer mean just marriage between one man and one woman because there will be plenty of churches that will allow other combinations. Marriage2 will become the basis of the laws in society, and Marriage1 will become specific to each church. Instead of saying Marriage1, one might say Catholic marriage or Shiite marriage.