> I could be completely wrong. I don't know. I know an awful lot of people, religious or otherwise, are against gay "marriage" because they're against gays, or just think we shouldn't "endorse" that lifestyle. Others are against calling it "marriage" but would be ok with "civil union". But I have this feeling that gay activists aren't going to be happy with the "civil union" compromise, any more than the atheist activists are happy with the "moment of quiet reflection" compromise on the prayer-in-schools debate.

It's possible you're right. But the atheist activist have a constitutional amendment on their side. It will take a really loose reading of the 14th Amendment in order for the Court to ever justify gay marriage on constitutional grounds. It's not impossible, but really unlikely in the near future given the composition of the current Court and the makeup of the government. If Bush follows the lead of the previous few presidents, you can expect him to appoint young justices to the bench, so it's unlikely that we'll see a lot of shakeup there even if there's a major administration change in 2008.

I also think that, should civil unions become implemented, it would undercut political support for gay marriages (not that there exists a lot of it now). Just as some atheist activists are really bugged by the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, there are plenty of less activist atheists (such as me) who couldn't care less. Someone like me, who would support laws expanding marriage to include gays, would be less likely to do so if we had civil unions.

Once you've won most of a political battle, it can be really hard to muster any support to go the last few inches to what you feel is the best outcome.

Stephen