Well, I agree, actually... Maybe it IS time to retrench and concentrate on some more winnable battles. I don't think we have the focus and energy to fight the fundies and the general ambivalence and misinformation of the general public in everthing. I think the marriage thing may have been premature and amibitious when more groundwork needed to be done.

(sorry about the mispost on yesterday's comments)

With all due respect….

The Iraq war allegory does not work. The reason we are loosing that battle is because we did not understand what we are fighting. Some do fight in Iraq because of the religious fundamentalism but many more fight because we failed to help their country and we are now seen as nothing more than occupiers, modern day Imperialists. They fight the occupation of their land by a foreign force they are fighting a civil war and a war for what many see as independence.

We should fight for everything, not piece by piece. When we parse out what we fight for then things will be lost. When we fight for employment and housing anti-discrimination laws, adoption rights, hate-crimes, military service, fair recognition in schools and any other right, we fight the same people that stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. All of these issues are part of the same battle. The problem we face in the GLBTQSS community is that some don’t actually support same-sex marriage rights so to them, they don’t really care if we get the right or not. But to those who demand that their partnerships have equal full recognition marriage is not a secondary issue. Of course we shouldn’t only pursue same-sex marriage rights but we shouldn’t abandon the fight either.

Any movement, political or otherwise, will always have a countermovement that will rise to oppose it. Yes the religious right is circling the wagons but we are also living in a time where they are circling the wagons on a whole slew of other issues that go beyond same-sex marriage… check your Roe v. Wade issues at the door.

The problem we face in this Nation is a lack of real Queer leadership in our community and in the Nation as a whole. During the civil rights movements in the 1960s it would be difficult to find anyone who did not know the names of Dr. Martin Luther King, Ceasar Chavez, Malcolm X or Rosa Parks and what they stood for. Who are our leaders, who are the ones that are willing to stand up day to day and fight for the rights of our community? We are at a point where too many people think that because Will and Grace had a hit run on television that the GLBTQSS equality movement has won. We aren’t vocal enough on all of our issues not just marriage but all of them.

Were I in Ohio I would love to sit face to face with you and discuss these issues but alas, I am not.

i can't bear children, so although i have my opinion on abortion, i keep it to myself. you're single, aren't you Brian? serially single?
and i do not mean that as a "slap" in any way, but human nature dictates that we will fight hardest for that which will benefit us most...i'll probably never be arrested for demonstrating on behalf of freedom in tibet, as a law-abiding citizen, i'm not particularly concerned about prisoner rights.
but as a gay man just waiting, impatiently waiting, for this "magical change" to come, someday, so that my commitment to my partner can be legally sanctioned, hell no, i will not back down.

There are things you are wrong about for the right reasons and things you are right about for the wrong reasons.

Your argument about Iraq is a tempting analogy on the surface but upon scrutiny falls apart. As Kevyn said above, one of the reasons Iraq is a disaster is that we don't understand the motivations of the enemy there. I would add that we are also failing there because the entire enterprise was based upon lies, greed, and evil intentions, and becuase our soldiers and strategists never knew what they were actually fighting for or had a realisitc goal. That leads to a certain amount of floundering, both morally and tactically, that could have only resulted in exactly what has happened.

The crusade for gay marriage has none of the above flaws, and the only floundering results from the hand-wringing over the mounting losses.

But the tactical reason to press on is to give our allies something to triangulate against to make SOME progress. With the wicked bugaboo of gay "marriage" looming over them, a surprising number of people have said, "Well, I don't support gay marriage, but I would support civil unions." With marriage on the table, he civil unions are seen as a reasonable compromise rather than something radical, which they would have been a mere few years ago. And eventually, gay marriage will be attainable from that smaller step.

This is the exact same tactic employed by the neocons and religious right in order to achieve their current prominence. Rush Limbo or Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin or one of those evil gasbags will say something so extreme and hateful that it makes the right-wing politicians seem centrist and reasonable. In this way, they have mainstreamed any number of the vilest ideas in our nation's history. Yes, they took a lot of losses along the way, but each loss led to a victory. Look where they are now, after all.

Not only CAN we do the same thing with gay marriage, we HAVE to. It is essential to balance their rhetoric with our own, or else the public debate won't be between gay marriage or no gay marriage, but between whether they put us in concentration camps or kill us outright.

The Iraq analogy is specious, because it was never a fight for what was right and just.

Hmmm. A lot to think about here from your post and from the preceeding comments. While I'll grant the the Iraq/Gay Marriage analogy is flawed in comparing these actual two situation, the responses to the situations and reasoning that advocates of both use is alarmingly similar. Just because our cause is just and the war is not does not mean that our strategy will prevail. I do agree that a rethinking of how to move forward is required. I definitely believe that the courts are the wrong way to pursue this. All you have to do is look at Massachusetts to see that a court decision does not put an end to the issue. While it is a tougher and longer road, I think the only way Gay Marriage can be achieved is through the legislature - by changing minds and voting in supportive members.

I agree with FAF—we need to concentrate on the winnable issues. We need to fight for equality in employment, housing, etc. Because once that fight is won, marriage will almost become a non-issue (or less of an issue than it is today).

However, that does not mean that bigotry will end—there are still idiots out there that find interracial marriage appalling (I am continually shocked by that).

The fight needs to be played out individually—person to person. There are a number of straights that only know gays from the footage of gay pride parades shown on the local news (15 seconds of bulging jock-straps and rainbow-colored glory) and we need to talk with those people to show them that we are multi-dimensional people.

I'm ambivalent about what you've written, so I won't comment on your argument, per se. But I do have some questions: 1) If we are to put aside the gay marriage fight until the right time, how will we recognize that right time once it comes? What are the cultural/political markers? 2) How do we balance the desire for astute political timing against the needs of thousands of people denied their rights?

These are questions that anyone rallying for a gay marriage backdown should be prepared to answer.

You know what? Fuck gay rights. Who needs 'em? I'll just put my tail between my legs, marry the nearest willing woman and pretend that I'm perfectly fine because after all, the fundamentalists on the other side of the aisle are never going to give up, and they're going to continue to tell you and the rest of the folks who think that gay marriage doesn't mean anything that we're evil and vile and deserve to be put to death.

I'll tell you this. It's never going to be the right time for civil rights. Never.

Because Fred Phelps and his clan keep breeding, and we don't.

So, laugh at me all you want.

Perhaps it is easier just to fucking shut my yap.

Travis

*shaking head* Doesn't matter if not one gay man or woman wants to get married. It's a basic civil right that is arbitrarily being denied.

Bryan, read this: The Backlash Thesis and Same-Sex Marriage: Learning from Brown v. Board of Education and its Aftermath, by Carlos Ball. Particularly the final section beginning on page 33. The author argues that the gains from SSM litigation have outweighed the losses.

One, some gay couples in the U.S. are now married. That, in and of itself, is a gain. Furthermore, the example of Massachusetts will show people that society doesn't fall apart when gay people are allowed to marry.

Two, look what the gay marriage fight has done: it's made civil unions the moderate position. Even George Bush has said he supports civil unions! The struggle has opened people's eyes to why gay couples need at least some sort of legal recognition.

Three, the gay marriage fight has led to progress on other gay rights issues by making some people more willing to support other forms of equality for gay people.

That said, however, it's true that at this point there seem to be diminishing returns from the litigation strategy. We'll see what the New Jersey Supreme Court decides, probably next month. After that, it will be time for a strategy shift.

One final thing, though. It seems that we're damned if we do fight for gay marriage and we're damned if we don't. Any social movement is going to lead to social disruption. We can't get anywhere if we don't fight at all.

I would like to add to what I've said, based upon further thought and other comments.

To concentrate on what is "winnable" is to lose everything.

Our enemies aren't concentrating what they think is winnable in the short term. They're going for broke, and on the way, they have setbacks to their ultimate goals, but they ARE winning small victories every day. These have accumulated into the disaster we have today.

The only way to win anything in this climate is to overshoot as much as possible and then fall back into a compromise. And then try again.

The commenters above are correct. The fundamentalists aren't going to go away. There is not going to be a "right time" because no matter how many moderates we convince, the right-wing monsters are going to pull out their bag of tricks whenever we try again. Maybe we will be more organized then, but they will, too.

FAF, I agree with some things you've said and disagree with others (I'm with Travis that it is never going to be the "right time" for civil rights), but I'm certainly glad someone is bringing up the discussion. It is a far more important debate than who should have been sent home on "Project Runway" this week, and we thank your faggoty ass for it. Much love!

Oh, and for the record, Angela and her bubble skirt soooooo should have gotten the "Auf" from Heidi!

[tangent alert]

Kevyn said "GLBTQSS". "GLBTQSS"!?!?!? For the love of Pete. What's next, "GLBTQSS-LMNOP..." Oh, and be careful, it has to start with the "L", not the "G". You'll piss off the repressed lesbians.

Sid said:

i can't bear children, so although i have my opinion on abortion, i keep it to myself.

Don't you have female relatives? Female friends? State control over women's bodies is an issue that affects us all.

Travis said:

the rest of the folks who think that gay marriage doesn't mean anything

Personally, from a strategic point of view, I think the problem that FaF and many others advocating a change in tactics have spotted is that gay marriage means too much, not too little (I also think it means too much from a moral/community values point of view, but that discussion can occur elsewhere).

That's why courts are so much more likely to grant marriage to same-sex couples based on equal protection arguments (they pride themselves on being rational and unemotional), while the general public seems bent against it, even as they are for equality on almost every other front (and only marginally against civil unions - in fact, by now popular opinion may have swung so that the majority is for them).

I for One DO NOT BELIEVE in GAY - MARRIAGE.
I dont even Believe in Marriage between a Man and a Woman...Has anyone ever Followed DIVORCE in the World.
I do Believe in Domestic Partnerships and I believe in Same Sex and Opposite Domestic Partnerships.
Until People of the Same Sex can Bare Offspring for the Good Will of God I wont believe in a Consecrated Marriage between Two People of the Same Sex.
I am Gay and Humble to HAve Loved at Least Once in My Life, and Hope to Find Love again One Day.
Thanks for allowing me to Post

I couldn't agree with FAF more. of course I say this from the comfort of Canada and our fully legalised gay marriage. Going for full marriage in most parts of the US seems to me like your trying to move a big box up a steep stairway by standing at the top and wishing reeeally hard that the box was at the top with you.
Canada took the route of civil unions and domestic partnerships and partner access laws and heavens knows how many other partial steps. Some steps were legislative and some were through the courts. I can tell you the victories through the judicial courts were by far the harder ones to win in the court of public opinion and no-one came out looking like adults (see Delwin Vriend v. Kings College and the Governemnt of Alberta for the height of immaturity on both sides)
These steps were mostly gained in the 1990's and in some parts of the country the very late 1990's. For those keeping track thats not so long ago. It only took 3-5 years to go from almost nothing to full marriage and an overwelming sense that the battle is done (well sort of done).
Take the wins where they can be had. Vigorously oppose the hopeless battles, and minimise their impact when possible. But start at the bottom step and bring the box with you as you climb.