Well, not the actual debate, but our own mini-version thereof. Lawrence at Commentary started the debate by making a reasonably controversial assessment that gay-rights activists shouldn't treat same-sex as something that could be handled by the courts (in the US).
Now, it is true that gay-rights activists could just wait 10, 20, 50, 100, or 200 years for the majority of people to accept them. But, we could say the same thing about slavery, racial equality, gender equality, and so forth. And, of particular similarity, interracial marriage.
Interracial marriage went to the US Supreme Court, where it was struck down as unconstitutional, and the laws that prevented it were basically unenforceable. I think most people agree that this was the right thing to do, despite the majority of the electorate being opposed to the idea.
In only 37 years, the concept of banning interracial marriage is generally considered foreign. While there may have been a lack of social acceptance, I'm sure even 5 years after the court decision, that the majority of people weren't interested in banning it legally.
Since that original entry, zaBlogger has posted twice on how some consider the choice of two consenting adults to marry each other to be an inalienable right. Lawrence further contended that making same-sex marriage a right where most people are against it is "stupid", denying a link with the interracial marriage scenario (twice, in comments to both articles.).
If you want to read what gay-rights activists want out of same-sex marriage, why it has to be considered a right if marriage is considered a right, why recognosing same-sex marriage is best for the institution of marriage, and why government's reasons for recognising marriage apply just as strongly to same-sex marriage, read my comments on Lawrence's two posts.
It's a bit sad I know more about the same-sex marriage scenario in the US than locally, but things do look good locally for same-sex marriage in the next two years.