Maybe I'll try to make my point clearer and in one post to you, so you at least know what I'M saying so maybe its easier for you to figure out what you want to respond with.
Currently, I think that disallowing same-sex couples a means of being married is unconstitutional based on gender discrimination
Now, if you want to make marriage a situation where any two people can be "married", then I'm fine with that personally. And I think in that instance that the terms "husband/wife" terms, in a legal sense, should remain and simply correspond with whichever the individual would like to have themselves listed as.
I think the best COMPROMISE position would be to remove marriage from a legal term and simply use "civil union". Thus "Marriage" truly simply becomes a societal and religious term rather than the dual meaning it has today. In such a situation, I'd see no reason why two more generalized terms shouldn't be used for the legal definition of the two people.
I think having Marriage strictly for opposite sex couples and Civil Unions as a seperate but equal coupling for others is unconstitutional due to the notion of "seperate but equal" being problematic constitutionally.