Today one of my best friends, LKL, whom I have known for more than 20 years is moving to London. He has to leave the country, because he's gay. You see, his long-time partner, M, isn't a US national, and his visa has finally run out. LKL and M have tried everything for M to be able to stay (and make a living), but every feasible option is exhausted. They are tired, and angry, and they have no choice
except to leave the country, because they cannot get married. After a year out of the country, M may be able to start a job search and obtain an
H-1B visa. "But you guys are coming back, right, after a year?" I asked, heartbroken that they're leaving. LKL took a long drag off of his cigarette, and then slowly responded: "I love this country, but I don't know. If they don't think we are equal, if even the Democrats won't stand up for our rights, if my country doesn't want us, I don't know if we'll come back." But, but, but, I wanted to say, but ... but I totally understood what he meant.
LKL and M are marvelous people. We're losing some of the good guys here, folks. LKL is a human rights worker; M is a teacher. They are both multi-lingual, passionate about life and rights, brilliant, funny, caring--people I am honored and privileged to call my friends.
LKL and M illustrate why civil unions are not enough to grant gay couples full rights of citizenship, because immigration is a federal issue. If we leave it up to the states to grant civil union status for gay couples, couples like LKL and M would still be torn apart.
I understand that many people, even good progressives, think that gay marriage is just too hot-button an issue to come out in favor of, especially during such crucial times electorally. And I think I (partially) agree, because as the very foundations of our democracy are increasingly threatened, I'm becoming more and more of a political pragmatist. But when Democrats are finally in power, we cannot waffle on this issue anymore. If we believe in full equality before the law, gay couples must be granted the right to marry, at the federal level. Specifically, we need to repeal The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA--Bill Clinton, I'll never forgive you for signing it into law.) And then we need to ensure gay marriage at the federal level. Do we as progressives have the courage to undertake these necessary actions? Necessary to live up to the ideal of our great country--equality for all before the law. It may politically be too dangerous, but morally (and constitutionally), I believe it's imperative.
This brings me to the larger issue of Markos's and Jerome's compelling argument that we need to let go of our single issue adherencies in order to form meaningful coalitions that will appeal to larger groups, and let us become a juggernaut of a progressive movement, that will eventually be the power base working on behalf of all of those "single issues." I came to dKos as a reproductive rights and gay rights absolutist, but I have gradually (albeit still with reservations) been won over by the political wisdom articulated in Markos's and Jerome's argument about the big tent.
After having had to say goodbye to LKL and M, however, I'm left wondering about two things concerning this big tent strategy.
1) Why do we have to give up our single issue absolutism in order to appeal to other people's single-issue absolutism, i.e., gun rights, or anti-abortion, &c?
2) If we formerly single-issue adherents consent to working for the big tent vision, how can we know that our sacrifice will be meaningful when Dems regain power? I keep thinking of Bill Clinton, always talking about equal rights for gays in the military, and then settling for "don't ask, don't tell." I'm haunted by the fact that he signed DOMA into law, thus giving opponents of gay marriage actual legislation, and the political leverage in the future to say: "Well, Bill Clinton signed it into law."
Do we believe in full equality for all, or not? If so, civil union instead of marriage for gays is not enough. And not only because of LKL's and M's situation outlined above; I'm sure that we can come up with other rights-gaps created by the state-by-state "solution" to the "gay marriage problem." If so, maybe you can write about some of these possible rights-gaps in the comments below.
Do we have the courage to fight for full gay rights?