Personally I don't mind this at all. Who says that marriage has to be romantic and forever, other than the agreement made prior to the ceremony? As much is this may be "trivializing" marriage, quite frankly, the majority of people trivialize marriage by thinking that when they marry someone, they will still be devoted to loving this person who they think they know 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now, and write vows that most couples never keep.Marriage already is a joke when it has a 50% divorce rate. People marry those who they do not take the time to completely understand, all of the time, and divorce years later, or right after, yet no one says anything negative about that because they're ignorant and say that they are "in love" at the time.
Yes this union is clearly more so platonic, but marriage doesn't have to be romantic. It is perfectly acceptable for it to be purely to enhance your financial situation, or even to enhance any other goal 2 people have in mind, like rugby. The main thing that is necessary is that the vows are accurate of how they see the future for each other.
So to the gays complaining, I would recommend focusing on cleaning up villages, and the overall reputation to the heterosexual community, who carry most of the power to give rights. Quite frankly that is what is setting the rights issue back, and prolonging national tolerance for different sexuality in America. A lot of the time it isn't homosexuality that turns heterosexuals off, it's the constant association of homosexuality to pornography, "queer life", perversion, and overall separate ideals from the rest of the american community, which are spurious, and in many cases incorrect, aspects attached to "Gay" communities.