Leaning libertarian again, I suppose, I don't have quite the same problem with this
that some others will. I still don't think it changes much of anything. Even on the "if it's legal, it increases acceptance of it" front -- well, one of the main arguments for it is that a ban is no different from a ban on miscegenation. Ok: anyone around think that, decades later, mixed-race couples are universally acceptable? If anything, they're becoming less
acceptable from the perspective of some of the "culturally aware" groups involved, as I frequently gripe, and I doubt too many of the then-opponents have been won over!
If they take it beyond the civil sphere, however, I'll have more qualms. There have already been occasional discrimination suits, saying churches cannot hire and fire based on sexual behavior. If they say, as (I hear; no links) some lawsuits in Europe (with moderately state-controlled churches) are trying to say, that religious groups cannot deny a sacrament to a person based on sexual behavior... well, that will be another story.
But, Mitt Romney (incredibly attractive Governor) is trying to overturn it, so the issue may well be put off for some while.
Just a thought: What I hear often -- and heard again on the news just now -- is that same-sex couples want the same tax breaks (and, I suppose, tax penalties) and inheritance law as married couples. So: could this be solved by changing the laws to say you can designate anyone you wish as your dependant or whatnot, and you don't even have to be in a sexual relationship with them? That shouldn't bug the traditionalist types, and, while I'm sure it won't be enough for the same-sex types, at least it will really annoy them -- that is, from what I hear, it wouldn't give them any privileges they haven't already got under other names or by filling out various forms, but it would allow people to say, "look, you can get married by the unitarians, and we'll give you all the financial things, so you've got what you asked for -- now leave us alone!"