The passage of California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage in the state constitution as between a man and a woman, was seen as vindication for those with traditional views of marriage. For proponents of same-sex marriage, it represented a gross violation of civil rights.

The referendum also reflected a trend toward challenging the role of courts to determine such social issues, returning them to state legislators or voters. And for opponents, it highlighted the distinction between democratic procedures and democratic values, where the former (each person has one vote) can violate the latter (a minority is treated unjustly).

A comparison of the outcome of the California referendum with the results of a 2008 Pennsylvania Deliberative Poll on the proposed Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment is instructive in this regard. The Pennsylvania amendment would define marriage as between a man and a woman and would explicitly refuse state recognition of any functional equivalent, such as civil unions.

In a Deliberative Poll, a random sample of the population receives background information on an issue. The sampled individuals then gather in small, moderated groups to discuss the topic with experts. Then they respond to a survey.

The University of Pittsburgh's Survey Research Center mailed notices to 4,000 registered voters across the state and recruited some 400 participants, 256 of whom participated in a day-long deliberation. The participant list was gathered from voter registration rolls of counties surrounding four host sites: Carnegie Mellon University, Community College of Philadelphia, Shippensburg University and Slippery Rock University. These sites were selected to represent both urban and rural voters from various regions of the state.

Initial results show that nearly 70 percent of the voters who participated support the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, either through marriage or civil unions.

But the situation is more complex than this headline implies. Among those who support legal recognition of same-sex relationships, participants split, with approximately 35 percent supporting same-sex marriage and 35 percent supporting a version of civil union.

At the same time, about 50 percent supported the Marriage Protection Amendment's definition of marriage. This was due to the fact that up to 70 percent of those who favored civil unions also preferred a traditional definition of marriage.

Nevertheless, given that 70 percent of the participants favored either same-sex marriage or civil unions, the preclusion of civil unions in the amendment likely would not garner majority support among voters in Pennsylvania.

Unlike referenda, Deliberative Polls have only consulting power; they can inform but not determine policy. But they also deliver much more nuanced information about public opinion, which can be used to influence policy decisions.

Our results show a clear trend toward greater legal recognition for same-sex couples. And in a recent follow-up survey in which well over half of our participants responded, this trend continued, with 19 participants either strengthening their positions on civil unions or moving toward recognition of civil unions. Only one individual had moved away from recognizing civil unions.

This Deliberative Poll deserves careful consideration by state legislators as they consider amendments to the state constitution or constitutional referenda. And to those like state Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery County, who seek to broaden the legal recognition of same-sex couples, it appears that the issue is best framed as one of "civil marriage." This phrase combines the informed opinions of our deliberations. It draws an important distinction between state and church by differentiating the civil marriage contract from religious marriage sacraments.

As to the polling process itself, an overwhelming majority of participants found the experience helpful, enjoyable and intellectually stimulating. These were not college students, but a randomly selected sample of Pennsylvania voters, with a median age of 54.

Considering that the topic combined sex, religion and politics, perhaps we all should employ the process when our families sit down around the dinner table.