Who is Really Weakening the Institution of Marriage?

I saw (and posted) this story today from the Press Democrat: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won praise in June after pushing to extend to gay and lesbian partners many of the federal benefits traditionally provided to diplomats' spouses. Since then, unmarried heterosexual couples have been lining up to ask for benefits too. They have approached the State Department's personnel office and the diplomats' union, arguing that they are entitled to equal treatment. and this comment by one of the right-wing candidates for Governor in Iowa: "They should have seen this coming," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who had opposed extending benefits to gay people. "It's a Pandora's box." And it got me thinking - who is really weakening "traditional marriage" here?  I mean, think about it - if gays and lesbians had just been allwoed to marry, like everyone else, a) there would be many more married couples in this country, and b) there would be no "marriage light" category for straight people to ask to join, putting off being actually married. This has happened elsewhere too - in France, straight couples who do not want to get married are asking to be allowed to have a civil union instead. In effect, by forcing gays and lesbians into civil unions, benefit plans, and domestic partnerships, conservatives have opened the floodgates for their straight bretheren to skip marriage for any one of these "marriage lite" options. And it gets better - in Texas, where voters went all the way and banned gay marriage outright without a "light" substitute, it appears they may have accidentally banned marriage altogether. So who, really, is damaging the institution of marriage - the gay and lesbian couples who want to join it, or the right wingers who will go to almost any length to "defend" it?