I've been exposed to was when San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders (R) testified at the Prop 8 trials. He spoke about the moment when he ceased thinking civil unions were good enough and decided to support marriage (he had actually called a press conference to explain why he was vetoing the city's endorsement of marriage, broke into tears, and endorsed it instead). He had no animus towards gay people; rather, he felt proud of his support. But old childhood-built presumptions still lingered in the form of prejudice. Civil unions were "good enough"; they resolved the problem of equal rights and everyone was happy. Until he listened and heard what "that's good enough for people like you" really meant. Dominionists are not absent of malice. They are not open to how "good enough for people like you" sounds. They don't care how it sounds. Because dominionism has nothing to do with the people whom they are putting under their dominion. People are inconsequential. So it matters little whether they are experiencing merely prejudice or bold hatred. I think you make some excellent points here. We are all prejudiced, but the key point about 'dominionism' is the wielding of political power. I'll be perfectly honest: I have reservations about the use of the term 'Marriage' in any sense other than that which is deemed to be a Sacrament of the Church. My own preference would be for the state to provide civil unions/partnerships for everyone , leaving churches free to 'marry' whomever