Sometimes I feel like our movement operates on a manual transmission, with sticky gears and a stiff clutch.

Can you sometimes hear the transmission grind?

Some years back, when achieving marriage equality seemed like a distant dream, like a concept car of the future, we fought for partnership registries and partnership rights. And we fought hard, knowing that we were struggling for separate and not entirely equal, but that we had to protect our families, we had to take incremental steps.

With the marriage victory in Massachusetts, we had to shift gears. Downshift. Upshift. Rev the movement machine. Change the direction to our finish line.

Two reports released last week suggest we need a movement tune-up, not an overhaul, but some adjustments.

For years we have pushed the argument that legalizing same-sex marriage will not require religious institutions to recognize gay unions. And that is a fact that we must continue to convey — the Catholic Church need not recognize a civil same-sex marriage in Massachusetts or Iowa or New Hampshire.

We pushed this argument because one, it is true, but also because it seemed the best weapon as we engaged in a fierce battle with the religious right, our most wealthy and influential adversaries, who reach the devout during sermons and the masses with pricey ad campaigns.

The religious right has framed civil marriage as a religious matter and has argued that civil same-sex marriage threatens religious freedoms and doctrine and a faith-based way of life.

We have argued there is no way government recognition of our relationships threaten religious institutions and freedoms and teachings. We have focused on secular arguments, on civil rights, equality and justice.

We have not as a broad movement — credit must go to several national and grassroots LGBT groups that have worked long on religious issues — done enough to fight our faith-based adversaries with faith-based teachings and religious principles.

Center for American Progress researchers Jonathan Duffy and Sally Steenland studied the ballot initiative fight in Michigan in 2004 and passage of a constitutional amendment banning recognition of same-sex marriage in a state that already had two anti-gay marriage measures on the books.

Michigan’s faith-based communities rallied to place the initiative on the ballot — collecting signatures before and after church services. Michigan’s faith-based communities invested heavily in getting it passed — $1 million from Catholic dioceses and sizable donations from a number of Christian rights groups. And Michigan’s faith-based communities campaigned inside and outside houses of worship.

“From the beginning of human memory, marriage has always been understood as the union of one man and one woman,” Cardinal Adam Maida said in a video distributed to parishes prior to the vote. “Let us do our part here in Michigan to preserve that sacred understanding and definition of marriage.”

On election day, the measure passed. Exit polling by CNN on the ballot initiative showed that more than 60 percent of protestant and catholic voters supported the amendment. About 82 percent of those who said they attended church more than weekly voted yes compared to 35 percent of those who did not go to church.

Duffy and Steenland concluded that we cannot allow the religious right to frame fights in the states or at the federal level as moral values vs. secular rights.

They wrote, “Religious values are on the side of LGBT advocates as well. The importance of a campaign staying on message must be balanced with the great worth of voices from various faith communities highlighting the moral and social justice aspect of marriage equality. A related lesson is that when anti-gay religious communities use biblical texts and teachings to argue their case, LGBT advocates should have their own religious messages to counter opponents’ claims.”

Amen.

The researchers also wrote, “Advocates should not write off certain religious communities as impossible to win or overlook any ‘unlikely’ allies, be it the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, or African-American churches. While some communities may have official pronouncements against same-sex marriage and campaign against it, almost always there are members within that community who by conscience have different views.”

Amen.

A second study released last week, “A Time to Build Up” from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force National Religious Leadership Roundtable, analyzed the Proposition 8 campaigns in California, where the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints played substantial roles in the passage of the anti-gay amendment.

The study author, the Rev. Rebecca Voelkel, summed up the lessons of the campaign:

• “Religious opposition requires a religious response.… It is naïve to believe that rights-based arguments can trump the value-based arguments of conservative religious leaders.”

• “Secular-religious partnerships are critical to future success.… There is an urgent need to establish alliances, cooperation and coordination.”

• A narrow political campaign frame hinders GLBT religious work.… “The Proposition 8 campaign goals focused on political change, were narrowly focused, and quickly defined faith-based communities as expendable. The initial strategy deliberately chose not to engage with religious-based opposition and, subsequently, minimal resources were dedicated to outreach and education efforts focusing on communities of faith and communities of color.”

As someone whose church-going experience was the equivalent of driving a lemon, my engine is choking a little as I think about taking this course, about challenging religious opposition with a religious response.

But I see the logic in these lessons and I know our push must include this route. Somewhere, back in the days of my catechism classes with the sisters at St. Anastasia, I recall a lesson from Genesis on equality. I never thought to take notes.