And plenty do not, what's your point?

Do civil unions have the same “benefits” of marriage? If not there should be.

I think the distinction should be socio-cultural: if you don’t accept that this civil union is “till death do us part”, then by definition it shouldn’t be marriage - it’s a civil union. All the same benefits of marriage with none of the cultural components.

Why would this be any business of the state? Why is it any business of yours how someone else defines the commitment of their long term relationship?

It's not my responsibility to advertise my belief system to you.

Good points. The state shouldn't be in it at all, because calling it marriage can be an infringement on the religious liberties of others. Civil unions are the state-sanctioned "legal pairing of two humans", and marriages are the religious term for civil unions - and come with religious expectations.

The state shouldn't be in the business of certifying christenings or bar mitzvahs, nor should it be in the business of marriage for the same exact reasons.

That the

> Nobody in my family is religious

point is out of place (because whether the family is religious seems to have little relevance)