I'm sorry. I laugh at the most random shit. Forgive me.

Yeah but the problem with that is that Marriage is recognized by the US law and is given the benefits above civil unions. There's supposed to be a division between church and state, but because the Church loves the benefits they get from the state, then they have to exist as an institute of the state, not the church. For this reason, gays shouldn't be discriminated against ESPECIALLY from having access to an institute regulated by the state. This sort of discrimination is congruent to denying a gay man from access to public schools for no other reason then that they're gay.

If the Church wants the institution of Marriage not to be "destroyed" through gay marriages, then they're going withdraw all benefits married couples receive, effectively removing them from the state, and this would mean that marriage is nothing more than a title in the eyes of the law, and would be treated the same way in the court of law that an imaginary title I give you and your childhood best friend called "Trigopolynomoly".


tl;dr
If marriage was a religious institution, it wouldn't be receiving state benefits. As a state institution, it shouldn't be discriminatory to gays.

Well I guess it would be the same thing, if marriage gets more benefits than civil union that means gays are still being discriminated.If the state can't make gay marriage plausible neither will they make marriage and civil unions equal in the eyes of the law.

Fuck America (I'm American)

Even still, even if Civil Unions were granted the same privileges as marriages, it would still be considered discriminatory, because gays would be unable to have access to a state institute, even if it has an equivalent named something else. What you're proposing is actually defined as segregation. Think of it as having a water fountain for black people and a water fountain for white people.