I'm a bigot? Please, look up the definition of bigot and then look in the mirror. I even explicitly said I was tolerant of gays. You are the one intolerant of others' opinions.
A straight person has the same rights as a homosexual person. They can both get married. That's equal protection under the law. What you want to do is change the definition of marriage, which I think is like missing a soccer goal but arguing to move the goal posts to make you win. Make a new word for gay marriage if you want - but leave the definition of marriage alone as changing it would break a lot of legacy code.
> A straight person has the same rights as a homosexual person. They can both get married.
...to a person of the opposite sex.
> That's equal protection under the law.
This is pretty much the exact argument which was made, and ultimately rejected -- see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) -- regarding anti-miscegenation laws, where it was argued that, under those laws, blacks and whites had the same rights, because they could each get married...to a person of the same race.
(Although in the restriction to opposite-sex marriage, the inequality is even more clear: anti-miscegenation laws could at least be argued to deny both blacks and whites the freedom to marry the person of their choice, and so to restrict the freedom of both races in the same way; you can't even make the parallel argument with the opposite-sex restriction.)
> What you want to do is change the definition of marriage
The definition of marriage changes all the time.
> Make a new word for gay marriage if you want
We didn't make a new word for mixed-race marriages when we threw out anti-miscegenation laws. We didn't make a new word for marriages where the woman could own property independent of the man when we threw out the rules prohibiting that. We didn't create new words for marriage each time the prohibited degree of kinship changed.
There's no need to change it when we throw out the restriction on the allowed combinations of genders, either.
> but leave the definition of marriage alone as changing it would break a lot of legacy code.
To the extent there are laws that need updated in the face of same sex marriage, they need updated to accommodate it equally if it a separate marriage-like institution with a different name is adopted.
