Yesterday, I wrote a long diary about my feelings about same-sex "marriage" as opposed to civil unions, about the California ruling, about liberal hand-wringing over whether gay marriage will be used as a wedge issue in this election, my feelings as an activist and lesbian who has been in a committed relationship for 8+ years, my disappointment with Barack Obama, and whether gays and lesbians should grab the reigns of the gay marriage issue in light of our successes in California and New York, or patiently wait for a better political environment to push for fairness and equality.
This morning I read David Pauls Kuhn's cover story about the subject in Politico
which suggests the likelihood that no matter how gays handle the situation, fundamentalists will try and push gay marriage as a wedge issue, and rally their troops against it with threats of fire, brimstone, and polygamist seniors defiling herds of adolescent sheep.
In this context, I think the situation is worthy of more reflection. If you care to join me, take my hand for the jump...
Before I begin my ruminations, for those of you who linked to the Politico article, isn't that a lovely photo of the amazing writer and activist, Jewelle Gomez, and her partner of 18-years?
Now, accoring to David Paul Kuhn's article:
Those who believe same-sex marriage could once again emerge as a polarizing issue in the presidential race note that the landmark November 2003 Massachusetts high court ruling legalizing gay marriage also took time before crystallizing as the most divisive social issue in the 2004 presidential race.
In the weeks following that court decision, some social conservatives even worried that President Bush would not sufficiently defend "traditional marriage." By February, though, after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, President Bush announced his support for a constitutional amendment to ban it.
This year, social conservatives are again pushing to turn same-sex marriage into a hot-button social issue. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins hosted a panel in Washington Thursday on "the national implications of the [California] ruling and on the plans to repel this assault on marriage and the family."
Although I vacillated in my essay yesterday about the best way for us gays to proceed in this embarrassment of riches environment, in the end I'd pretty much come to the decision that we needed to see the forest through the trees, to focus on the bigger picture of getting Barack Obama elected (stacking our deck, so to speak) and then bringing our claim to justice and equality to the fore under a much friendlier administration.
What I didn't contemplate then seems like such an obvious oversight to me now -- what if the fundamentalists bring the fight to our rainbow doormats? Should we just take it?
I have my opinions, but I'd like to hear (read) yours -- please discuss. I'll add my two cents as the conversation proceeds.
Oh, and also, for those of you who believe in equality for all, and want to help defend marriage rights in California from a constitutional amendment outlawing them, you can contribute much needed funds to that effort here:
Equality for All
My unrecognized family thanks you in advance.