In Defense of a Word

Why are militant gays so adamant to be able to use the word "marriage" to legitimize their unions? In many places, they are able to become "partners" and gain the rights of married people, but without being able to use the word "marriage." But' that's apparently not good enough. They want the right to use the word "marriage," which would redefine the MEANING of that word--and that's their intent. Thousands of gays in California, who were "married," are now not. But I'd bet they will still be allowed the same rights married people enjoy. But they're "taking to the streets" because the California citizens took away the word "marriage." I predict there will be VIOLENCE in support of their cause. Why are they so strongly OPPOSED to having to call their unions something besides "marriage?" Because they want to REDEFINE that word and make it their own. Personally, I have nothing against gays. What they do in private is their right and no business of mine. But I will NOT call their unions "marriage." (Just common sense)