Gay Marriage (continued)

Ruth Sylvester and Don Kreis just about cover the "pro" arguments in favor of gay marriage, now a legal fact in Vermont (and -- tentatively -- Iowa). I can't argue with their positions because I agree with their goals. I only question the means.

In my opinion, widespread tolerance of homosexuality in American culture -- like tolerance of divorce, Catholicism, and racial diversity -- is simply a matter of time. How much time will be a function of political and legal strategy by both proponents and opponents.

I'm concerned that, by focusing on "gay marriage" rather than equal rights, we are prolonging the battle potentially by many years and at significant cost.

Specifically, how will those states respond where a majority may be hostile to the concept of extending marriage to homosexual couples?

Amendments to state constitutions are one proven method. Iowa may prove to be an important battleground for that approach.

Federal courts will be hard-pressed to adjudicate these conflicts and the US Supreme Court will eventually have their say. Justice Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas is an instructive primer to the constitutional contours likely to be applied throughout the federal courts. I simply cannot envision Kennedy's equal protection rationale being extended to gay marriage by this iteration of our Supreme Court.

Finally, there may be a federal constitutional amendment campaign restricting marriage to heterosexual relationships.

I am concerned that all of these legal and political battles will now likely revolve around the question of marriage, rather than the question of equal rights. I think that debate plays to the hands of those implacably opposed to gay marriage. We'll see.

Ruth's point about the importance of words and social recognition is well taken. I appreciate the emotional, visceral importance of this issue to many people who have experienced decades marginalized. Unfortunately, Ruth's point cuts both ways. The visceral, emotional content given the word "marriage" is a potent rallying cry for opponents as well. Their viewpoint is not simply a matter of bigotry, something perhaps more difficult to discern from this part of the country.

I also salute Ruth's broader point, suggesting that the road to equality is neither straight nor well-marked. A national struggle over gay marriage may ultimately be the best vehicle for establishing equal rights and broader tolerance. Or that struggle may ultimately result in a national separation of civil union and social marriage ceremony both Maureen and I are advocating. I am cognizant that the "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" critique of gradualism may apply to me here as well.

The adventure continues . . .