The entire Gay Marriage/Civil Unions debates seems to have reached a point where it is defined almost entirely by a linguistic disconnect. Civilly recognized unions conferring the set of rights that a legally recognized marriage grants a couple seems to have gained fairly broad support. Five years ago, support for this position was supposed to doom Howard Dean's primary bid, now even Sarah Palin refused to state categorically that she was against granting same-sex partners the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Clearly the idea of granting broad civil right, if not the same precise set of rights for heterosexual and homosexual couples is a position with reasonably broad support. I imagine that a substantial majority of Americans (and Californians) could agree to the following propositions.
Homosexual couples may file joint tax returns
Homosexual couples may visit their partners in the hospital or in prison
These two are just a few of the many examples of rights that most Americans are happily willing to grant homosexual couples. I can't really think of any of the rights/benefits conferred by the state in marriage that Americans in most states would be unwilling to grant homosexual couples through civil union.
The entire hangup seems to be the darn word "marriage." It is a word that to most Americans conveys an image not of joint tax returns and hospital visits, but instead a wedding and a man and a woman together. Therefore, trying to expand the meaning of the word means a change in that treasured image legislated by the state. This is why the debate on the pro prop 8 side was framed in terms of that image rather than as a matter of granting or not granting a set of rights.
The question then becomes whether to pursue a rights based strategy in which highly expansive civil union laws are passed through reasonably progressive state legislatures, or if it makes more sense to seek the right to form unions called "marriage" either through court decisions or the legislative process. My own instinct is to say that a marriage debate right now simply is not going to be productive. Values are shifting organically with regards to views towards homosexuals. Younger voters like myself tend not to object at all to expanding the definition of marriage to homosexual couples and as the voting pool contains more voters from this generation and fewer from generations more hostile to homosexuals. By pursuing a civil unions based legislative strategy right now, progress can made in most states in a manner that does not require court assistance and probably will not lead to a substantial and vehement opposition by many voters.
The point I am trying to make is that the rights element of this debate is not really the reason most of those who voted for prop 8 did so. A pro prop 8 ad I saw, tried to claim not that homosexual couple did not deserve right, bue instead that their rights are already codified and protected by California statute. Why not take them at their word and push legislation that would remedy any gaps in the rights of homosexual couples. As attitudes towards homosexuals and homosexual unions become more progressive, voters will realize that mainaining a legal distinction between homosexual and heterosexual marriage is pointless and the gay marriage issue will be resolved without it becoming a broad political distraction. This resolution may not happen immediately, but it will likely occur far quicker than seems likely now in the same way and through the same processes as the change in attitude and results towards rights based civil unions.