Connecticut, a second opinion

A gay conservative (yeah, there are such beasts) isn't happy with the Supremes ruling in Connecticut that gays must be allowed to marry. He doesn't object to gays having equality in all things, but he does object to the way we seem to be getting there. His first complaint: A dissenting justice (backed up by recent polls giving 55% approval) says that Connecticut will get to gay marriage "sooner rather than later." So why do gays need protection from a hostile majority? We should be getting over our official victim status. Second: As society grapples with the definition of marriage (and in Conn. they're almost there) should it be unconstitutional to compromise on civil unions (which Conn. already has) while we all catch our breath? The ruling makes patience illegal. Third: The unwillingness to compromise and take things slowly may cost us California, Arizona, and Florida. Fourth: it will scare other states from taking the halfway step of civil unions, which will allow its citizens to get used to the idea. Yeah, a CU isn't marriage, but sometimes when you insist on all or nothing you get nothing.