"Legalising" gay "marriage" is not the solution to the problem of "marriage inequality".
The solution to the problem is for the government to get out of the business of issuing "marriage licences" to opposite-sex couples, not for it to get into the business of issuing "marriage licences" to same-sex couples.
Why should anyone require a licence from the government to get married, anyway? Libertarians should be concerned with abolishing such governmental intrusions, not clamouring for "intrusion equality", or insisting [1] that the State "should recognise everybody’s right to be equally miserable."
The solution has a precedent in the abolition of titular Knighthood and Damehood honours by Helen Clark. (They were restored by John Key in 2009.) Wikipedia [2] says
In April 2000 the new Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark announced that knighthoods and damehoods were abolished, and the order's statutes were amended accordingly. Between 2000 and 2009, the two highest awards were called Principal Companion (PCNZM) and Distinguished Companion (DCNZM), and recipients did not receive the title "Sir" or "Dame". Their award was recognised solely by the use of post-nominal letters, as for the lower levels of the order.
The government simply needs to set a date after which marriage licences will no longer be issued. Civil unions will be the only option available for gay and non-gay couples wanting governmental endorsement of their love lives and living arrangements. Existing marriage licences issued by the government, and those issued by other governments, would continue to be recognised, but the government would cease to issue new marriage licences after the set date.
After much time spent considering my co-bloggers' excellent arguments both for (Tim) and against (Reed) Louisa Wall's "marriage equality" bill, I'm off the fence now and picking the splinters out of my scrotum. I'm for marriage equality and against Wall's bill.
[Cross-posted from Eternal Vigilance [3].]