How?
By framing it as it really is, as a choice between abstract "social issues" which do not impact their lives (witness ending discrimination in marriage law) and "real" issues that that do impact their everyday lives (i.e. bread and butter issues) is how to properly define and undercut the "social issues" debate...
How exactly you ask?
Answer below the fold.
Field candidates who are clean, and honestly believe in our view of the world, and talk simply, directly , and back them up in every conversation that lends itself to the discussion and (both our candidates and us) answer like this:
"If you think that enshrining discrimination against others, who in no way impact your day to day life, is more important than having a solid, secure living wage job, a fair share in economy, affordable quality health care, a pragmatic and realistic national defense, clean air, food and water... if you think discrimination against gays is more important than your own families economic, well being, and its actual health and treating everyone equally and fairly... then vote for the other party.
But if you want a solid, stable living wage job, if you want clean air, clean food, clean water, if you want access to the courts if you or your family are harmed by greedy transnational corporations, if you want a sensible, pragmatic, reality-based defense policy, if you want clean, clear, open government, if you want affordable healthcare, if you want a secure retirement, if you want laws that treat EVERYONE equally, fairly and justly... then vote Democratic."
What is so hard about this people?