Scope creep in action, or at least requirements determination. Should civil unions (whether heterosexual or not) be banned, or only homosexual ones? Should marriage be required for benefits? Should marriage be heterosexual only? (And as per the other article, in the same paper, should it be only between two people?)

There's marriage for the name, and marriage for the benefits. Both are involved in this debate, and that's perhaps part of the problem. For religious reasons (read the article -- I think it's clear it's mostly religious) many people want to restrict marriage by name to only heterosexual couples. But then they're offended by 'alternative' names for marriage and their use for non-married couples or homosexuals or threesomes, or everybody else looking to have benefits (for pragmatic reasons.) Why should married couples, obeying their religious beliefs, be granted more economic benefits or legal rights than anyone else chosing to live together?

It's an interesting issue, and a current 'fad' in our legislature. Sit back, watch the show, and maybe fire off a few letters to your congressmen.