I don't think it sounds petty. I find it insulting.
Let's pretend we have two identical restaurants. They look exactly the same and they serve identical dishes, same menu..everything. One restaurant is called "Marriage Cafe" and the other one is called "Civil Union Cafe". The town these two restaurants are located in has told you that you are more than welcome to frequent the "Civil Union Cafe", but you may not, FOR ANY REASON, ever enter the "Marriage Cafe". And why? Because you're not good enough. You're different. They wish to keep things the "way they are" in there.
That pretty much sums up how I feel and I don't find it petty at all. 
I don't think that analogy makes sense at all. People are not restaurants, and no one is excluded from restaurants.
If you want a non-human analogy, try this. You or anyone else has the right to make a soft drink, market it, sell it, promote and distribute it, etc etc, but you are not open to using the name coca cola. Already taken.
What I do find interesting is that every here falls back on the name issue and not the core agenda of rights. By avoiding the admission that rights is the issue and if rights are guaranteed, then the name should not matter.
If you think the word is so important to have, why then can you not believe those that want that word specified for traditional use are any less entitled to it?
Marriage was NEVER on the table for gay rights until recent times. The institution was scoffed at by most gays as being too institutional, too traditional, too straight and too restrictive. Changing attitudes, whether they be originated by aging baby boomers who want the transfer of loot easily, or younger generations who desire more traditionality, or anyone else who just wants to be like Mr. and Mrs. mainstream USA....fine. But, it seems by most that the uncompromising need to carry the word 'marriage' on a legallly equal certificate is just a finger in the eye of traditional families who have every right to be traditional if they choose to be.
