As I said before, most of the points in the article are refutable, and it will be the media depiction of everyday people like the ones you mention that will try to refute the notion that this is a radical change. Believe me, MSNBC is not going to stick a microphone in the face of a float rider at a gay pride parade for an opinion on gay marriage.
I oppose changing the constitution because people want to keep homosexuals in their place, whereever that is.
That is the crux of the similarity between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement of years past. Even if someone insists that there is a difference between homosexual behavior and genetically-determined racial characteristics, there is still a cultural "us-them" that operates in both spheres, and this can be made to look like a collective "us" keeping "them" in their place. Expect the media to find a way to champion "them".
Most polls show that opposition to this is a religious issue.
I agree, but there is a substantial "ick" factor to consider. Ironically, it looks like the religious right is the ones trying to focus the minds of the mushy middle on the "ick" things, whereas the media, in defense of the gays, is trying to focus on the "family" things. The interesting thing about the article at the head of this thread is that it avoids both religion and ick, and tries to appeal to the middle on the issue of the natural resistance to change the status quo. That's the only way gay marriage has any chance of being slowed down. Whichever side looks the most radical is the one that's going to lose.
It is an issue of legal standing and access to government liscensing.
I agree, and right now, the gay marriage proponents are staying on message with that point. If the anti side can find a compelling message that does not turn off the people who are not normally inclined to be receptive to it, then there will be a real debate on the issue. If not, then there will be a societal change, and a lot of name-calling going on, heat and fury, signifying nothing.