As First Things notes, the recent "military wedding" of a US Air Force guy with another guy attracted a lot of news attention; only thing is, it was a civil union, and isn't the definition of "wedding" the start of a marriage?
I read about the "same sex wedding" (its headline) in a long article at Slate. Sure, within the body of the article they note it was a civil union ceremony, but it takes a while to get to the point.
What's more interesting about the Slate article is the detail of the background of these guys. Both come from conservative religious backgrounds; both have been married (to women, one of them twice) and have 2 children. They fell in love via meeting at church, while was of them was still married; the discovery of the relationship (I don't think it is clear whether it was physical at that stage) sounds like it was pretty traumatic for his wife.
But, of course, the general tenor of the article is that everything is fine and wonderful now because two guy have finally found their love match.
This type of treatment of this type of story shows the sort of bias that the media treats sexuality with these days; although to be honest, many people go along with it.
Of course, what I mean is that if this were a heterosexual story, would the media see much there to celebrate? People falling out of love with their wives, particularly while they have children, and falling in love with someone else is rightly seen as kind of sad, no matter how happy the new couple are. And given statistics of divorce and remarriage, most cool headed people know that no matter how brightly the new relationship seems to be burning at the start, there is a very good chance it will not last.
But finding a dude who you really like and gets you going in bed is supposed to change this equation entirely? Yes indeed. The national media will give you lots and lots and lots of attention, because imitation marriage by same sex couples are just meant to be so heartwarming.
Update: having a look at the slide show of the "wedding" at the Slate site, I have a modest request: can gay couples do us marriage conservatives* a favour and stop appropriating heterosexual marriage imagery (down to slow dances on the reception floor, what looks like jokes about a garter on a leg, etc) for their wedding/commitment ceremonies/whatever?
Do it in the nude maybe; or put the ring on the tubular organ that wasn't available for the purpose at the last wedding; I really don't care. But do something original for God's sake to show that what you've come up with is an original idea that is new to the entire human race.
* by which I mean: those who think a cultural and religious phenomena that everyone understood and accepted was heterosexual and about reproductive potential for the last 10,000 years shouldn't be changed on the whim of modern sexual identity politics of the last 20 years.