See, that just sounds like we're going through the motions of the whole "Separate but Equal" shenanigans all over again. A thing which I had thought we'd already sorted out.
That's a strawman though. Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are not intended to be "separate but equal". They're intended to be two separate legal statuses for two different types of couples, and *should* be unequal. In the exact way that hundreds of other legal statuses are not equal either. I don't hate people who aren't poor and I don't hate people who aren't handicapped. Yet, magically, I don't think those groups should qualify for food stamps or be able to park in the blue spaces, respectively.
Do you see how excluding people from a legal status and therefore not giving them some benefit that another group gets isn't wrong? It's at the heart of creating those statuses in the first place. You wouldn't create them if everyone could qualify for the benefits. Same deal here. The legal status of marriage exists to deal with procreation. It's therefore quite logical to restrict the group to which that status applies to those couples who may procreate. In the same way that it makes sense to limit food stamps to those who may not be able to afford food, and handicapped stickers to those who may not be able to easily walk from a more distant parking space.
You're getting caught up in rhetoric and failing to see the issue for what it is. Again, do you honestly believe that 60% of voters in California and North Carolina just hate *** people? Or do you think that maybe there's more to it than that ridiculously simplistic strawman argument?