anon, its not about living and let living. Its about glbt having the same moral legitimiacy as heterosexual marriage, and your entire post shows this is the reasoning. This means not so much legal change, but moral change..civil unions grant virtually all of the legal rights, but marriage grants moral legitimacy.
That’s why the huge firestorm of protest..obama’s selection of warren was a moral issue, not a legal one. he is not appointing warren to his cabinet, he is not doing anything except using him figuratively as an olive branch to evangelicals, mostly i wager to soften their worry that he would stomp all over them politically. But he violated the moral argument by having someone who doesn’t believe in the moral equivalency of all modes of sexual expression.
That desire is something that can never be satisfied in law, mostly because while a majority of people are okay with gayness and the need for legal equivalency, they can’t find it morally equivalent, for whatever reason.
I think that is what people find worrisome. Legal equality even christians accept, in terms of protections, custody, etc-that never was the dilemmna. What was was glbt often trying to use the courts and other means, like the schools, to try and force acceptance of moral equivalency. That isn’t live and let live.
Legal equivalency can be satisfied, but moral can’t.
