What would prevent ANY law firm from providing the same service? Why not get the contract ratified by a priest–before God, if you will, according to your inclination–and then sign a contract that is spelled out in whatever form the partners agree too, and which only touches the State to the extent that it enforces the contract when one party or both balk.
This would eliminate COMPLETELY the debate over gay marriage. The whole thing, in any event, really revolves around government benefits for same-sex couples, and not over some alleged wrong being otherwise committed. They can get married NOW in all churches which allow it, and they can negotiate NOW any form of contractual commitment they want.
As far as government, it can simply recognize contracts as they are presented. Given that benefits are a part of compensation, the total package can be adjusted up or down such that people who are not married are not paid less, and people who are married are not paid more. My concern is not that gay spouses are placed on government benefits rolls, but rather that the rolls are expanded past their already bloated, indefensible, and unsustainable current size.
This is fair, which is an overused, but still occasionally useful word.
I’d be fine with this arrangement.