You're totally right- plenty of good people hold prejudices. Those prejudices, IMO, are only problematic when they're obscured or repainted as innocuous. In which case, they either stagnate and fester in the hearts and minds of otherwise good people, or else they're allowed to blossom in more malicious circles. Think we can all stand to be called out on our prejudices every once in a while, for the sake of building a stronger society. No need to simply write them off as flukes in an otherwise healthy worldview.

Totally with you on the civil union thing. Civil union should be the parallel secular status granted to all married couples for policy implementation purposes. Like when you go to get your marriage license, you also get your civil union form. Or is this already how it works in some places?

Pretty sure that right now, that's not how it works. Currently, I think marriage generally has to be defined and confirmed by the state, and then that's the basis for all the rights that marriage affords. And that version seems really backwards. Requiring state validation of marriage provides all sorts of political disincentives to support less traditional unions. Seems like it would make a lot more sense, both for political purposes and in the interest of church/state separation to establish the following policy standard: Each religious institution has the right to decide whether or not they want to allow gay marriage. All marriages effected by religious institutions will be recognized as civil union by the state. That would support religious freedom, offer an outlet for everybody to get married if they want to, and make the whole gay marriage thing less of a political minefield, as it doesn't have to be specifically addressed in legislation.