To get out of having this discussion about religion, we need to talk about this in terms of what it is (we being the left) - a bundle of rights because that is in practical terms is the only thing the state can affect. One that believes in separation of church and state that is. Indeed, you can convince even some evangelicals of this- if you make the argument that it's not about marriage.

The desire to call it marriage has more to do with a desire by gays to be accepted. But this is unrealistic to expect a change in laws to equal acceptance. It doesn't and it won't. Those are two different battles. The example I give is that of being African American- I was talking today to a friend who like me is both gay and black and professional. We see the effects of the difference in what the law says and the issue of acceptance all the time. Professionally, there is a difference between what an organization is forced to do because of the laws on race versus what an organization will do for minority employees because it knows that these issues go beyond the letter of the law. It goes down to, for example, making certain there is a retention of employees and the growth of their career in the company.  He falls on the side of calling it marriage, but he acknowledges really for him its about having a more open society.

My thing is that I don't believe as a lawyer that laws promote open society. They only determine rights and responsibilities. It is inadequate for the function of providing social acceptance. It still must do its job- provide the rights and protections. But, the rest- the acceptance, is a separaate battle that must be won outside of the law. Now is this line as clear as I am saying- no. But, to have this discussion you have got to start to make it clear I think so that more people on our side comes to the debate understanding what we can and can not do through legal action.