@surfboy
—-To get hung up on a word: “marriage” to the point that a group injures itself rather than resolve the situation by acquiring the same rights via a different word, seems self defeating to me.—-

To an extent you are right. From a legal point of view it would not matter if the same rights could be obtained by another name.
The two issues here are that marriage and registered partnership are far less equal than they are touted to be. There are problems with inhertance, custody of children, conjugal visits, being considered next of kin in matters of health, frequently do not count as related for the purpose of healthcare, insurance, renting or mortgage. And even when the law -says- they do frequently the little tickbox saying ‘registered partner’ is used as an excuse by organisations to discriminate against you. Things are improving slowly but a lot of family legislation is tied to marriage and not all of it is yet transfered to also apply to registered partnership. On top of that there is a lot of subtle and not so subtle every day discrimination.

The more important, though admittedly emotional, issue is that we call the committed emotional and legal relation between two adult humans marriage for about as long as we have the ability to speak (not the exact word obviously). The wealth of imagery and emotional response the word and all the ceremony it implies elicits makes it clear how much more it means than a legal contract between two families. Girls dream, often -live-, for that moment where they wear that white dress and stand in front of everybody who matters to her to declare her love and her desire to stay with that one person the rest of her life. I can not speak for men but I assume it is an equally emotionally powerful image and moment for them as well. So, no, marriage is not simply a word. It is much more than that.
And by declaring that this word does not apply to some people is in fact insinuating that these people, or their relation, is not good enough to be considered human.
The lawmakers thought they were compromising, but they neither appeased to social conservative zealots nor did they stop the stereotyping and discriminating.

That is why the homosexual community is still fighting for the right to marry. And why it is wrong to deny them that right.

@surfboy

Most of the western, and presumably the rest of the, world has solved this problem long ago by having two distinct ceremonies: A civil marriage (which codifies the relationship for the law and bestows upon the couple all the necessary legal rights and obligations), and a church marriage which is defined as the church sees fit and is subject to church laws only (but has no binding legal consequences outside of the church).

That the USA is still fighting tooth and nail against this says more about their desire to live in a theocracy than about anything else.