Can somebody explain to me the gay marriage issue please from a legal perspective?

'semantics' is an oft-misused word. you should do some research into the science of semantics before you go throwing it around like that. anyway, the legal perspective is 'gays are icky and threating to me, and i'm secretly curious about dabbling in some gay sex myself'. doesn't sound very legal, but neither did 'black people are scary and threatening to me and they need to be segregated and not vote and stuff.', and that was widely accepted in laws for a long time.

In Nevada, the state has two separate forms---one for straights, one for gays. Both have the same legal protections, just different terms. One is marriage, the other is civil union. Since the state cannot tell religions who they can and cannot marry, then, yes, an Elvis impersonator can marry a same-sex couple--as long as they fill out the appropriate civil union form either after or before the ceremony, just like in any marriage ceremony. My uncle and his partner were legally "civil unioned" in Vegas by a man dressed as Liza Minelli.

There is no LEGAL perspective to it... It is all about feelings, you see. Even if "gay civil union" couples were granted the same rights and responsibilities as the married folks, "gay marriage" proponents would STILL be fighting for their cause.

Marriage has certain constitutional protections (involving interstate recognition, privacy, etc.) and federal benefits (such as social security benefits for widows and widowers) which civil unions do not have. In the 1990s, Congress passed the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" stripping federal recognition from same-sex marriage and nullifying the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. So in practice, there wouldn't be much difference until the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" is found unconstitutional. In addition, it's worth noting that past definitions of marriage have excluded interracial marriage, until the mid-20th-century in the United States, and have excluded equal partnerships, until the early 20th century. Before that, marriage involved coverture, where the husband *owned* his wife.

Briefly--"Marriage", in the context of our overall culture here and now, is a word filled with Judeo-Christian context. The predominant interpretation of the morals and ethics associated with that context as it has evolved here in our culture is that using "marriage" and "gay" together is a sometimes subliminal affront to morality and ethics---(as viewed through this particular lens of socio-religious history, which may or may not be accurate or just or anything else---it's just the way that history and subsequent tradition is perceived and thus how certain views have prevailed over others). One need not even practice the religions referenced to be flavored by these views. They surround us and we grow up in them. So, the idea that homosexuals can be "married" is uncomfortable as it questions these widely accepted views. Some states have implemented an end run, whereby legally, they'll call it a "civil union", which legally allows a couple to have the same legal rights as people who are "married" while side-stepping the idea that doing so confirms a moral or ethical acceptance of the idea, stated or not, that the couple is "married", "under God". It is basically denying the right of gays to participate in what is a religious ceremony, (again, even atheists who take part in the "ceremony" are simply affirming a deep-seated accountability to a Judeo-Christian religious tradition here---that's why it's a "ceremony")---because the gay couple participating in that ceremony or ritual would be doing something taboo, in the most true sense of the word. Obviously--simply changing perceptions and allowing gays to participate in a ritual that need not have any context other than a non-denominational ritual to affirm a spiritual and intangible connection is hard when in fact the ritual is NOT non-denominational at this time in our country. It has roots in the evolution of Judeo-Christianity. So, the answer is, you cannot explain the gay marriage issue from a legal perspective. That is why it is still an issue. It is explained better from a sociological perspective.

does not follow the definition of a marriage. it's more of a domestic partnership.