I could pick your post apart piece by piece - it is full of inaccuracies and misleading statements... but you seem to be a a zealot rather than someone looking for an honest discussion, and mah daddah tol' me nevah to argue wit' a fool.
Have a nice day.
"Well, I think Schmoe would have said "the right to marry the person that they love (of same sex) and share the benefits of said marriage, like discounts at their employer."
(1) Individuals who engage in homosexual behavior have the same legal access to the institution of marriage as defined by law -- i.e., one man and one woman -- as do any other individuals.
(2) There is no universal "right" to marry. In fact, it involves the issuance of a government license for which the applicant must meet legal qualifications. That license is not legally available -- nor should it be -- to couples comprised of the same sex, or of brother and sister, or of a 40 year old and an 8 year old. From a legal standpoint, whether or not such couples might "love" each other is irrelevant.
(3) Further, civilly recognized marriage is not a matter of "rights" but of government regulation and restriction of otherwise unrestricted sexual behavior. Society legally licenses marriage between a man and a woman because such relationships have over thousands of years proven their benefit to society, among other things, as the healthiest, safest, most stable and secure environment for the raising each successive generation of children.
(4) Schmoe's or anyone else's interesting opinions to the contrary aside, in Michigan this is a matter of constitutional law. By overwhelming vote of the people of Michigan, state government -- including government employers such as EMU -- are prohibited from recognizing homosexual or other nonmarital relations as equal or similar to marriage.