And what are our shared values regarding abortion after 20 weeks? Or opening marriage to any combination of people? Or whether men are women if they think they are?
The recourse to raw political power to push an agenda down the throats of those who disagree is not “structural”, it is a choice. It’s a decision that trying to make a case and persuade people of a workable way to let gays honor their commitments to each other that can achieve a consensus is just too hard and takes to long, so let a few judges impose it. No need to “coerce them [who disagree] into changing their views”, simply bypass their views. Are the majority being thus bypassed? Who cares? Certainly not the winners, who are off on the next step of their agenda.
Your response suggests your belief that a process, a system, will do what, force those using Alinsky’s tactics to abandon them? Will BLM stop fomenting riots? Will the Global Warming crowd suddenly start actually debating the science, instead of vilifying the scientists themselves? Will the President cease imposing policies that Congress has not enacted?
You are dreaming. All that and more could be done tomorrow, if politicians wished it. As long as politicians reject debate and consensus, there will be none. No system can force it. The prior prerequisite of any process is the very shared values which debate and consensus must build on, but which are being fragmented as we speak. As long as politicians are willing to win by pushing changes on our society that are unpopular with a solid majority of Americans, and keep doing that over and over, the situation will continue to get worse and recovery will be less and less likely.