I'm still waiting for the explanation of what makes same sex marriage fundamentally different from heterosexual marriage.
Legally mandated racial equality was fairly new and trendy in many areas of the country in the '40s and '50s, did that mean we should just ignore it for a few more decades to see where it went? We aren't even giving same sex couples the pretext of a "separate but equal" protection. If you give homosexual couples in civil unions the rights and privileges granted to married couples then it's truly a semantic argument. That's fine. I'll listen to an argument that you don't need to change the context of an ancient tradition; however, when that argument inherently generates social inequalities then semantics have to take a back seat. And if you can't demonstrate a fundamental difference between same sex and opposite sex marriage, we seem to be in that situation. So I'll continue to argue that semantics alone aren't important enough to continue restricting the freedoms of a segment of society typically estimated at 8-10% of the population. Put in context, that means there are more homosexuals in this country than Asians or Jews. I certainly don't think modern American society would put up with a construct that explicitly restricted the rights of the Asian or Jewish population relative to everyone else. We're on constant simmer over the existence of stop-and-frisk and the Arizona law allowing ID checks because of the perception that these laws promote racial profiling in their implementation.