[Happy Monkey]

I don't have a representative. I'm asking a person who at least twice said that marriage and civil unions were different things. But the only distinction you have made is religious sanction, which should not be, and is not currently, a distinction under the law.

When a politician says they don't support marriage for gays, but they do support civil unions, and you applaud their making that distinction, I am asking you what that means for the law. Which is the perspective that matters when a politician says it. He's not running for pope.

Huntsman (in this instance, but also Obama, among others) said he didn't support "redefining marriage", but that is exactly what he would have to do if he supported a government policy that people who were married by a justice of the peace are no longer married, as Lamplighter and ZenGum suggest.

If, on the other hand, he wants to keep current marriage law in place for straight people, but make up a new class of marriage for gay people, but with a different name, that sounds like discrimination to me.