I thought that I read something of yours claiming that marriage itself is an institution perpetuating harmful gender identities which should be boycotted by all true homosexuals?
That's one of many stances held within the queer community.
I personally don't have any interest in marriage, I don't think it suits me even though I'm monogamous but I recognise that there's this bundle of rights I won't be able to access without that marriage; it would make myself and any partner I had vulnerable and I wouldn't want that. I also think the legal institution of marriage should be scrapped and we can leave those ceremonies to churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and the like. I'd prefer if we empowered de facto rights a bit more because I'm not keen on this whole implicit invalidation of a relationship without a marriage in the eyes of the law and because, yes, the Judeo-Christian/Islamic form perpetuates gender identities that I'm not overly keen on.
I think a good point also, is how, when the ACT briefly had civil unions, this was regarded as a breach of marriage tradition and wrong.
We shouldn't be marrying. By the same token, however, no one was married and so there was never a notation that hey, we just forcefully divorced a whole bunch of people ... because it isn't really marriage. I think that as long as marriage is a legal institution we need to make it one for all because no matter how much weight we give to civil unions, they are still unequal, vulnerable and 'not real marriages' (despite it coming under the no same sex marriage clause ... so no civil unions for us, either). We need to be equal, we need to be safe.