As for "marriage for gay and lesbian people," the preferred term of the NLGJA, I pretty much agree with Peter and Tom on its clunkiness.
That wording has solid thinking behind it, though. It's the reason "rights for gay and lesbian people" works better than "gay rights." Lesbian and gay folk don't want a special category of rights (insert your own lame joke here about what rights those would be). They want the same protections and status that other groups enjoy.
They don't want a special kind of marriage, they just want to marry. The institution doesn't change, but the people wanting to be part of it do. Perhaps the ultimate, most-accurate-possible phrase would be "marriage for same-sex couples."
I take the reajavascript:void(0)listic stance. I appreciate the NLGJA taking the time to work out these issues, but I have headlines to write. And their phrase (or my version) doesn't fit.