The position you're arguing is a 'separate but equal' construction, which is exactly what the court decision took on. But since you claim to not be a homophobe and have many reasons for protecting marriage, perhaps you could go into some detail on those. Could be there is no place for compromise, but it's hard to tell, not knowing what the problems are.

Legally and/or constitutionally, I think those opposing gay marriage do not have much to stand on, IOW, I think this will ultimately prevail on a national scale. But if the state of California allows a state constitutional amendment barring gay marriage to go to a vote, then the judges cannot argue against constitutional law. My objections are purely moral with the spiritual ramifications. I think gay sex is one of many sins and I am not condemning people for sinning (because we all do) but I am not condoning it either. Too much sexual freedom in this world leads to depravity. Abortion is depravity.

As for the state of morality in America, I think it's changing, and likely always is. Only from a xian POV could it be considered 'slipping' away from their ideal. From my POV it's 'slipping' in terms of basic human rights and dignity, vis-a-vis invasion of privacy, imprisonment and torture.

Accepted, it was a Christian POV. I think when 7th, 8th and 9th graders engage in oral sex, anal sex and intercourse at alarmingly high numbers that in itself is a very strong indication of a society degenerating morally and it will suffer as a result in many ways.