Yes, it did seem like a nice, easy solution to just say that marriage is for churches and that civil unions are what the government recognizes. The reason that would have been easiest is because that is , in fact, the way it is and making that clear and going from there to reform would have given fair respect to religious beliefs held by so many. Please do not confuse what I am saying as defense of bigoted idiots, many of whom share those religious beliefs.

 I don't doubt for a moment that what OC says about proposed civil unions is correct but what was proposed didn't/doesn't need to be what is adopted. Of course those who oppose gay marriage would move the goal posts if they could, certainly the bigoted idiots would but their definition of civil union did not need to be the only one considered and so then rejected. I have expressed in the past an opinion very much like barefooted's friend which I re-post below with the only change being some highlights.

To the part of this discussion which has moved from public opinion pressuring business decisions to talk of gay rights and gay marriage, I throw in the following based on the idea that words have power.
I believe the arguments about marriage have been complicated, prolonged, and polarized by a refusal to define terms to fit reality as it has become. The word 'marriage' has come from past times and until recently was used without confusion to refer to the civil contract entered into by the participants whether or not it also was seen by those participants as a commitment to God based on religious beliefs and sanctified by the religion of the participants. The church participates in the two parties making a vow to God and breaking that vow to God has no legal implications whatsoever. Any church refusing to sanctify a vow which does not meet their religious requirements is perfectly alright in doing so under civil law and that is the way it should be.
If the word 'Marriage' was thrown out of civil law and all marriages were, in the eyes of the presiding government, defined as 'civil contracts with rights and obligations defined by that government but the very same for any parties allowed to enter into that contract, then the debate could be much simpler and much more constructive.
My personal example, which I have used before, is my marriage as a person raised in the Catholic church to a woman who was a Mormon. The ceremony was by a Mormon Bishop which meant, to my understanding, that the Mormon church recognized us as being married although they did not grant me any privileges which that church reserves for Mormons who had gone through various steps towards sainthood. They also did not allow that my wife had the privilege of being bound to me for eternity, something we eventually both came to view as a good thing although we are good friends twenty years after reaching that conclusion. The Catholic church would deny our right to ever break our marriage contract.
My own [former] Catholic church does not believe that I was married at all except to the extent that they acknowledge my civil marriage but still saying I was not married in the eyes of God. I can live un-worried about that just as I can be un worried about how a few thousand other religious sects [?] view the commitment I made when I said, "I do". The state cannot say that I was not married because of any church position and it also cannot, and should not be able to say that the Catholic church must call my union a marriage. In any case, the state of Utah endorsed my marriage and so the other 49 were obligated to do so too. That is because under civil law, which is the only kind that government has any right to apply to marriage, the state saw that marriage as a legally binding civil contract.
Simply recognizing what is in fact the case, that in the arena of statutory law that all marriages are civil contracts, would narrow any controversy a great deal. Then define what combinations of humans are allowed to enter into that contract. When the civil union contract is seen as a legal document outlining the rights, obligations, and privileges defined under that contract and which are, or should be, equal among any who are entitled to enter into the contract as specified by law, it becomes a thing which no church can put asunder.
I say that the word 'marriage' should be removed from the legal definition of what has been commonly called marriage and should be replaced by civil union. If gays, for instance, want to be joined and want all the legal rights and privileges granted to a heterosexual couple who are joined in what is actually a civil union even though many use a different term to describe it, then I say that all they need do is join a religion or church that recognizes a gay civil union as marriage and which calls it marriage. There are Christian churches that will do so. Those gays will then be married as much as I ever was. Or as little as I ever was depending on which religious authority they might see as an authority. If they want equal rights then demand the rights allowed to any other civil union, support has been moving rapidly in that direction for a while now. Meanwhile, I wish they would quit creating and pushing a political issue in a way that concentrates on one religiously significant term in a way that is very politically beneficial to the very ones who want to deny them any rights to any consensual arrangement at all that has anything to do with their sexuality. That bunch will strive to take away plenty of other rights beyond the laws concerning marriage, other rights that are important, even vital, to all of us. Let the terms 'marriage' and 'civil union' be meaningful in their separate realms but not overlap into each realm.
Gays who push for the right to be married, as opposed to being civically union ed, and those who support them and jump into the polarized fray on those terms, are actually and demonstrably doing harm, even though it is unintended, to the Democratic party. That is usually frowned upon around here regardless the right or wrong or nuanced complications of the issue at hand. [End of repeated comment]

This is not a big issue with me like it is with my gay sister who agrees with you. Things are going the way you would choose and that is okay by me except when the fight for a good change hurts politically in a way that could have been at least somewhat avoided, IMO. Right now I am not arguing so much for my previously stated  position, but merely arguing about the arguments here and now.

I get horrified when "liberals" think public shaming is a great thing.

I agree with you about that.  I think there's way too much shame in society, or too much shame about the wrong things, at least.  Shame is, after all, what was unfairly imposed on gay people for many, many years.  We should open minded when dealing with our fellow citizens and far less judgy than we are.

The problem is, this only works if all sides are not judgy.