If you had to choose one and only ONE...which would it be?

I am not bashing, but it seems like the question justifies a "separate but equal stance" which is essentially polite discrimination , and I am not much a fan of that stance. However if I have to choose just one, I would choose the first one. Because nothing seems awful.

Option 1 still seems narrow minded to me... Not considered marriage to whom, God? The Church? If the gay couple aren't religious then that shouldn't matter but the option still sends mixed signals.
Better than nothing, sure maybe?.... but still unfair and bias.

As for voting - one's rights shouldn't be up for a vote, IMO. The whole point of rights is to protect the minority and ensure that the majority doesn't infringe on what should rightfully belong to all citizens, even a minority.

No, sorry, I wouldn't settle for sending all the black kids to school in an unheated shack filled with cockroaches and sharing ripped up 50 year old text books 3 to a book with no toilet facilities. Separate but equal is never equal.

There is a way for both sides, it just requires a compromise. There are no RIGHTS attached to the word marriage.

First - you did not present a compromise, you presented the two sides of your personal ultimatum. Second, there ARE rights attached to the word marriage. Your religion does not own marriage - it existed for thousands of years before your religion existed. At best you can make the case for owning "holy matrimony" but even then you still have to share it with Jews, Muslims, Hindu and every other religion ordained to perform wedding by their OWN rules (including those who perform holy matrimony unions of gay couples).

Special, do you consider those who were married outside of a house of worship or religiously blessed cermony, "married"? How do these folks' unions affect your faith? IYO, (the eyes of the church) are these people actually married? I do not understand how anyone else's union affects your faith or your marriage. Could you give clear, concise and measurable examples of these intrusions, negative effects and infractions? Thanks.

http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/07dec/newlaws.html


At the same time, Dick and other family law experts say, registering as domestic partners will not be the same as having a marriage certificate.

In fact, because the federal government — and many states — have statutes that disallow recognition of same-sex marriage, Oregon’s law is another block in a nationwide crazy quilt of legislation that gives same-sex partners some rights, denies them others, and may cause their rights to change if they go.


This is from the Oregon's family fairness Act.

separate but not equal, Oregon does not give them all the rights!

YOU can't dictate what means what to what church

 And churches can not define who can legally be married and what union can be legally called "marriage."  FWIW, there are RC churches that will marry gay folks- there are even, gasp,  gay priests and nuns-

Special- How does extending the use of the word "marriage" to homosexual unions impact your faith and your marriage? Measurable, clear and concise examples, if possible. You are all about insisting  that others respect YOUR belief system and your church; not tread on your religious freedoms, yet you fail to return or offer that same respect to those who do not share your beliefs.

You are your a huge example of the things you complain about-