I think it is a matter of semantics
Matt, to answer your question from a European perspective.
Outside of the US, in nearly all of Western Culture, regardless of pairing, one registers the civil union with the State and the marriage ceremony by a church or other community, should one so desire (if your parents are still alive, you'll desire, believe me. They may not be crazy about their son marrying another man, but he's going to do it right, or else! Americans who think their parents don't tell them what to do have not the faintest idea what European parents are like.)
Of course, the Catholic church is still refusing, with the occasional priest showing mercy.
But we have a long tradition of civil unions, so the semantics aren't that big of a problem. Sometimes, things get stuck half-way, when a government changes hands from liberal to conservative, for instance. In Germany, civil unions for gays were originally limited to all the legal responsibilities and rights, but not quite all the financial advantages in taxation and pensions - the ultra-conservative Catholic politicians had a temporary majority and stopped the financial legislation in the upper house. Over time, the European Union and the courts have gradually forced these inequalities out of the law and today, even the conservatives are beginning to mutter that it would have been better to just stand back. But the main thing, the recognition of Mann und Mann or Frau und Frau has been there and binding for years. Slightly lower divorce rate than straight marriages, slightly higher index of happiness...but, as always, gays tend to marry at an older age than straights and never because they got pregnant.
In the US, marriage is the only term available on the federal level. And that, for me, is the gold standard. States may do whatever they like, as long as the Denial of Marriage (yes, I know the proper designation) Act remains, gay unions in the US are definitely second-class. No green card for the foreign spouse. No recognition across state boundaries. No this, that and the other thing.
There are several possible solutions. Were Obama to set civil unions as equal in federal law to marriages, and make them available to both gay and straight couples, many folks would accept it. The constitutional guarantees already in place would 'protect' the churches from 'having' to perform a marriage ceremony if they chose not to, but there would probably be some symbolic mumbo-jumbo for the blue-mud-belly-button crowd.
Another alternative is to pass civil union legislation just for straights and then gradually add us in.
Most folks in Europe don't bother with the term 'civil union' or 'eingetragene Partnerschaft' or whatever and just call their straight or gay union a marriage, regardless of whether a priest blessed it or not.
It is a question of human rights. On this issue, the US has repealed citizen's rights at an increasing pace while the rest of the West (Europe from Germany's border with Poland to the east) has expanded them. If I were a libertarian, I would be out in the streets fighting for gay rights because the pattern here is obvious.
Oh, two armies which are at the very least just as 'tough' as the US military, the Dutch and the Israeli have had gay soldiers for a very long time. Nobody fcuks with either of them. The German army has had virtually no problems with the topic either, although (thank goodness!) this is the first time in a very long time that nobody is afraid of our military.
