The etymology of the word marriage traces back to religious ceremonies and texts; marriage has a long and established relationship with religion, hence, the word carries the denotation and connotation of being sanctified by religious institutions, such as the temple, mosque and church.. While many people are not aware of the words subtexts, they are aware they feel that it has something to do with God. The debate over whether God sanctifies homosexual love is still being loudly debated. Until the debate is settled, both sides would be rational to use a value neutral term, such as civil contract. Sadly, neither side wishes to see the people involved as anything but cannon fodder in an emotional fight. Clearly, both sides wish to use the word marriage as a weapon in their arsenal.

The slippery slope that many of the Left do not want to face is that once you create a non-religious or amoral (i.e. moral neutral contract), equal protection under the law would mandate opening civil contracts to other forms of unions, such as polygamy and inter-family unions. (This is not a comparison between these mentioned forms and homosexuality, but this is where many who are not able to follow natural entailments of existing positions may very well leap.) If society chooses to chance the law for civil contracts for homosexuals, the society must prepare itself for the law of unintended consequence.