In support of civil union (but not gay marriage)
Not true, actually: She supports some form of legal recognition for gay couples but punts on the marriage label, leaving us to wonder whether she also qualifies as a "dumb bitch". Imagine what pure spun comedy gold it would have been if she opposed gay marriage, too. No doubt the inevitable semen-stain photoshop of her on Perez Hilton's site would have been extra semen-y.
If you go for civil union (or some kind of union that's recognized by the government but not bearing the name "marriage") that is legally equal to marriage now, you will win. You have the support of all the presidential and vice presidential candidates (including the true conservative Gov. Palin). You have my support. You have Miss USA's support, and I am guessing, Miss California's support as well (in one of the interviews, she indicated that from the way question was phrased, it was clear Perez Hilton didn't mean whether she supported civil union—question was specifically about calling gay union "marriage"). There is no one who is nutty enough to oppose you, not in the USA—and if he or she does, oh boy, they are going to get creamed.
But, if you go for re-defining the word "marriage" itself, you are at best 50-50. You already lost in California, one of the most liberal states in the U.S. How many are you willing to lose? How much backlash are you willing to suffer? If you keep insisting on distorting and mutilating heterosexual relations (eventually enshrined as "marriage"), how long do you think they will still respect your gay relationships?
Right to petition the government is a protected, fundamental right, so there is nothing anyone can do to stop you from lobbying for distortion of the word "marriage". But you should be aware of the obstacles you face, and how much you stand to lose—that is the overwhelming support you enjoy now for a legally-recognized, legally-equal civil union.