Wow, that is entirely the opposite view of "marriage" that I have always had. I think this is likely just semantics, but I have always viewed "civil unions" as the legal bond between to people,which gives them rights as spouses, next-of-kin, tax credits, etc etc, and marriages as a bond between to people recognized by a spiritual group of some sort. I mean... that's why a "civil" union is "civil"... it has nothing to do with religion. I have been to many weddings where religion plays no part whatsoever. I would loosely use the term "married" for anyone who has entered into a civil union, but when it comes to the law, what really matters, I would think, is whether or not every spouse, gay or straight, has the same legal rights, and that should be what is afforded in a civil union. I think the semantics are silly, but people seem to want that. I honestly don't understand why the issue is so complicated (except that some people seem to want to legislate morality, which I am firmly opposed to).
If that isn't the issue, then, well, you had best wage war on every church that doesn't recognize the marriage between divorcees or non-Catholics or... you get my drift. As a heterosexual woman I can't get married in a Catholic church, but since that is their own personal belief and doesn't affect my ability to get married in other churches, I'm not protesting that...
NO church in America...absolutely NO church...has the legal abilty to marry anyone. They are merely authorized witnesses for the state. They have no power to marry anyone without the state. Marriage has ALWAYS been a legal definition since the dawn of the United States, not a religious one.
Knowing history is important in these matters. It's not just semantics.