Marriage has been defined traditionally as the joining of a husband and wife, but has now been amended. I think it would have been a decent compromise for those against it based on it being called something other than marriage but with the same rights and privileges. A lot of those opposed to same gender marriage would agree to this. Some benefit for both sides. I have spoken of this to some of my gay friends (yes I have gay friends), and they agree it would have been acceptable.
Gay people like everybody else are pretty diverse. So I don't doubt your friends held the view you suggest. But they are surely in the minority amongst lgbq people as is clear from the way the movement for equal rights has gone. (Though I am curious whether these friends have actually endorsed this "solution" as just/fair/equal, or if they had rather said that it might be the wisest course of action in terms of political strategy--that is, a very suboptimal solution but perhaps the best we could realistically get. If it was the latter, well obviously they were wrong on the political strategy! It was not the best we got, we got actual equality.)
Really, it's hard to believe after more than a decade of debate about this issue that you haven't heard every explanation of why the civil union for gays, marriage for straights option is completely unacceptable. (Do you really need them rehearsed again? You know, separate is not equal. This degrades same-sex relationships by purposefully marking them as different--and hence lesser--as not the "best" kind of relationship. [Not that I agree that marriage is the best kind of relationship, but that is clearly the dominate societal view.] Would it have been an acceptable compromise on the issue of interracial marriage to call interracial relationships "civil unions" to appease people who thought the races shouldn't mix? Why in the world would anyone "compromise" on their basic civil rights? etc. etc. No doubt all of this has been explained to you many times before. I guess you either haven't been listening, or aren't trying to understand. Or maybe sincerely have been but just find the ideas totally foreign? How that could be I don't know. But whatever.)
But hey, if we need compromise why not downgrade straight marriages to "civil unions" and let the gays have a chance at "marriage"? Straights have been keeping the institution to themselves all this time, it's only fair right?! I mean, if there's nothing at all unequal about one's relationship being called a civil rather than a marriage then why aren't straight people happy to accept that solution? Explain to your kids that, no, mommy and daddy are not allowed to be married they are just "civil unionized." No more using the terms spouse, wife, husband, etc.; you'll have to stick with partner, which means people will be constantly confused about whether you have a loving committed relationship or own a business together. When you try to get health insurance through your employer it'll be a fiasco because while HR knows what "marriage" is, they have no idea what a civil union is or why they should treat it similar to a marriage. And so on. If you would happily be onboard with all of that for your personal relationship, then hey I guess we just see the world very differently, since I would not be okay with any of that. But if any of that does bother you, well, then there is your answer about why separate but equal is not actually equal.
On the OP's question, I am bisexual (now married to a woman for the past 5 years, with her for 10 total) and realized that about myself in college. I was involved with gay rights activism before actually realizing that about myself (but having some curiosity lets say). So I remember certainly throughout all of high school (that would be the mid-late 90s) being pro-SSM. But can't remember much before that. I did go to Catholic school until 8th grade and so was indoctrinated with those views on sexuality. I know I went through a year of being crazily anti-abortion at age 12--due to the religious influence no doubt--but that didn't last long at all. But I can't remember my actual thoughts on gay rights issues.
I do think this is an interesting question because so many people have changed their opinions and in such a short period of time. And I think there is a tendency for people to actually forget what their earlier opinion used to be once the tide has turned or their view has radically changed (e.g. there are opinion polls/surveys from 2003 and a decade later showing that apparently lots of people who supported the war in Iraq t the time it began don't remember doing so or refuse to admit it because the % who supported at the time and the % who now admit having supported at the time are significantly different.) I think it's important also to study how these changes happen so that we figure out how to achieve future civil rights goals better and faster by strategizing as best as we can.
