Gay Marriage Update and Election Aftermath Part 3: 7 Lingering Questions and More General Impressions

In Part 1, we looked at the four victories for the gay marriage movement via three successful approvals and a defeated ban, along with how Barack Obama didn’t even wait until Election Day to abandon the gay rights movement.  In Part 2, we looked at how the general elections effectively gave us two more years of the last two years.  Here in Part 3, I have seven lingering questions that I want to look at briefly here before moving on from the 2012 election.

First, what kind of information was suppressed in the time leading up to the election?  I’m very curious to see what comes out in the coming weeks.  I’m sure we’ll see some stuff come out and it’ll be fun (or not) to see what does emerge. 

For example, we have already seen news of a delay on the next round of European aid to Greece and that Europe is officially back in a recession.  We’ve also seen the CIA director resign due to an affair, right before being scheduled to testify on Libya.  We’ve just learned that the FHA is likely to need a bailout.  Additionally, we see Israel in a military skirmish that somehow managed to be postponed until just after the election.  Do you really think any of this couldn’t have been announced or set in motion before the US election? 

Second, and probably more important, what about the fiscal cliff?  The nation needs both parties to address the fiscal cliff that they created and the self-inflicted recession that could potentially follow.  Unlike the past two years, Obama and the Senate Democrats have to actually make the effort to work with the Republicans in the House.  Also, unlike the past two years, the House Republicans have to actually make the effort to work with Obama and the Senate Democrats.  What we’ve seen so far does not inspire confidence, but I still expect a multi-month extension to get us through to the new government in January and I’m still thinking 3-6 months.  More to come on this topic later, too.

Third, with the election results, gay marriage results, and marijuana results, one might be tempted to consider America to be more liberal now than it used to be.  The quick answer for now is that it depends on definitions and demographics, but I’ll table this one for another day due to the complexity of the question.

Fourth, it’s interesting how the stock market plunged the day after Obama won and the selloff continued.  Having a shopping list of stocks to buy on weakness multi-year timeframes and cash to put to work, I don’t mind that so much.  It’s as if Wall Street wanted to send a message to Obama, perhaps a reminder of how powerful they are and/or show of disappointment in his victory.  After all, while Wall Street was a huge backer of Obama in 2008, they overwhelmingly supported Romney in 2012.  So, what’s the message?

Next, the more pro-Obama hoopla I see everywhere, the better I feel about not voting for him.  His pre-election abandonment of the gay rights movement matters, too.  Not voting for Obama was already something I felt great about to begin with given his dismal job performance in his first term.  The Obama cheerleaders doing their thing not only fail to bother me, but actually make me feel better and suspect I’ll continue to feel good about it as time passes.  At the moment, I see no signs that Obama will actually change much from last term to this term.  No rhetoric thus far has suggested a shift and he has no political incentive to do so for either himself or the Democrats as a party.  If the Senate went for and the House stayed with the GOP, we might have seen a shift, but it didn’t happen due to poor GOP candidate selection in 2010 and 2012 as detailed before.  I don’t approve of a second Obama term and have seen nothing so far that would change my opinion that Obama is a masterful campaigner and a terrible leader, but it’s a clear win for Obama and it’s time for the nation to move on because there isn’t controversy like 2000 or 2004 and we have more important issues to attend to. 

So, the fifth and sixth questions are whether the victors can win gracefully and whether the rest can lose gracefully.  For the most part, I think the answer is yes to both questions, though I have seen plenty of evidence to the contrary on both questions that I’m not going to link to.

The final question is whether Obama now has a ‘mandate’.  The quick answer is no, but I’ll save that for a future post.

The bottom line is we had four victories for the gay marriage movement via three successful approvals and a defeated ban while we also had general elections that effectively gave us two more years of the last two years.  Questions do still linger about suppressed information, the fiscal cliff, the US’ political future, Wall Street’s message, whether people can win/lose gracefully, and Obama’s supposed ‘mandate’.  We’ll just have to see what happens.

Links:

Part 1: http://timsopinionblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/gay-marriage-update-and-election.html 

Part 2: http://timsopinionblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/gay-marriage-update-and-election_18.html

Gay Marriage Update and Election Aftermath Part 1: Gay Marriage Results

You surely know by now that Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney for the presidency.  You also probably know that the House of Representatives remains under GOP control while the Democrats retained control of the Senate.  These will get all the headlines even though it simply represents no change and two more years of the past two years.  I’ll come back to those in future posts.

For now, I want to focus on where change did happen, namely the gay marriage votes.  I don’t really have much to say about the marijuana legalizations except that the stage is being set for a Constitutional or states’ rights showdown between the federal government and various states that I’m looking forward to and will explore at some point. 

You’ll recall that three states were voting on approvals (Maryland, Maine, and Washington state) and Minnesota was voting on a ban.  I predicted a split for gay marriage supporters (Maryland and Washington) and opponents (Maine and Minnesota) to erase the goose-egg.  I was wrong.

As of right now, it appears the gay marriage movement went 4 for 4, winning approvals 52-48 in Maryland and Washington and 53-47 in Maine.  The Minnesota ban appears destined for defeat at 51-47.  These were all close races, as I expected, though I didn’t expect a clean sweep for the gay marriage movement.

One quick clarification.  Prior to this election, gay marriage did have one popular vote victory where Arizona’s proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Proposition 107, was defeated in 2006.  There was still no approval victory until this time around.  So, technically, there was a goose-egg coming into this week on offense, but not on defense. 

Clarifications aside, the gay marriage movement continues to gain momentum.  These victories bolster confidence and reduce doubt in the effort.  The federal level is still the key and that battle is being waged mainly in the Supreme Court, but probably will also come up in the legislative process.’  California is the key state-level battleground.  More to come on this topic later.

I was originally going to roll some other election 2012 thoughts into this post, but I found something more on gay rights worth discussing here.  I recently saw two articles on the matter worth sharing.

Here’s the key excerpt from one of them:

According to Obama, "it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform," ABC added.

Also, take a look at this quote from the second article.

"The courts are going to be examining these issues. I've stood up and said I'm opposed to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act ... I've said that's wrong, [and] there are a couple of cases that are working their way through the courts, and my expectation is that Defense of Marriage Act will be overturned. But, ultimately, I believe that if we have that conversation at the state level, the evolution that's taking place in this country will get us to a place where we are going to be recognizing everybody fairly."

I have one key point here.  He shows his belief that this is ultimately a states’ rights discussion.  That means he doesn’t believe it’s the federal government’s job to decide here.  DOMA is on the books at the federal level.  By not pushing to repeal DOMA and simply hoping it gets overturned, he’s saying that he doesn’t want to use active federal intervention to undo active federal intervention.  If marriage is a state-level matter, then Obama just said that federal tinkering in marriage has to go and he thus should be working to repeal DOMA.  Am I the only one who sees the logical problem here?

Between the first quote and the second quote, I think it’s safe to conclude that Obama has turned his back on the gay rights movement.  This won’t reverse the momentum, but it does clearly hurt.  It shows us the movement is on its own and should not expect meaningful help from the Democrat establishment at the federal level.  Remember, the sitting president is generally viewed, fairly or not, as also the party leader. 

The expected counter is that I’m reading too much into what he said and didn’t say, thereby inserting my own interpretation.  That counter is coming, and, as usual, it’s wrong.  By saying it would be up to future generations to implement meaningful reform, you’ll notice he didn’t say that the present generation will implement meaningful reform.  The present generation would be during his second term in office.  He also clearly shied away from using federal intervention to undo the federal intervention of DOMA.

Last, note the date on the article.  This was published BEFORE the election.  Talk about an insult to the movement.  Politicians typically wait until after the election to say something like that to deflate a voting bloc.  The fact that he did this before the election speaks volumes about how much of an ally Obama truly is to the gay rights movement.  Did anybody hear anything about this before the vote?  I sure didn’t and I pay pretty good attention to this kind of stuff.  I think a lot of gay rights advocates should be questioning why they voted for Obama in the wake of this story. 

The bottom line for now is we had four victories for the gay marriage movement via three successful approvals and a defeated ban while we also had general elections that effectively gave us two more years of the last two years and Obama abandoned the gay rights movement even before the election ended.

Links:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-mtv-i-won-t-be-pushing-gay-marriage-second-term?fb_action_ids=10100953713956471&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1696360/president-obama-same-sex-marriage-equality.jhtml

Gay Marriage Update Before the 2012 Election and the Second Presidential Debate

This is going to be another one of those posts where I do multiple things.  First, we will look at key gay marriage votes this season.  Second, we will have a look at the second debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

We have four key votes on gay marriage this season.  There are votes to legalize gay marriage in Maryland, Maine, and Washington states and there will be a vote to ban gay marriage in Minnesota.  As I’ve previously detailed, the gay marriage movement is 0 for 32 in votes about the issue in the past 15 years.  I think that zero is going to go away this time around, which would be a monumental victory because, to this point, it has only been through the courts and legislative process that gay marriage supporters have managed to achieve victories. 

Given the 0-32 record, it’s easy to argue that this time will be no different and history will repeat itself, but I disagree.  All the supporters need is one victory to erase the zero.  Anything beyond that would be a bonus.  A clean sweep for either supporters or opponents is possible, but highly unlikely, in my view.  My prediction is 2-2, with Washington and Maryland going decisively to the supporters, but Minnesota and Maine going narrowly to the opponents.  Let’s see how right or wrong those predictions turn out to be. 

And we are onto the second Obama-Romney debate.  I found this to be a very difficult debate to watch and score for several reasons.  The main reason involves the moderator, Candy Crowley.  Simply put, I’ve never seen such a poor job moderating a debate.  Why was her performance so terrible? 

First, the role of a moderator in a town hall debate is little more than that of a timekeeper and announcer of the name of the person asking the next question.  It is not the moderator’s role in a town hall debate to ask questions of the candidates.  That is the role of the person the moderator announces and only that person at that moment.  Crowley violated this repeatedly. 

Even more inappropriate than that was Crowley’s actions during the Libya question in which she failed to act as an impartial moderator.  She involved herself in the debate by explicitly stating that Obama was correct and Romney was wrong on the Rose Garden speech.  It was literally a real-time fact check and this is absolutely unacceptable conduct by a moderator during a debate.  The intervention was bad enough, but number two is that she was factually incorrect.  Additionally, though I’ll admit I did not keep track of time on each question, I will say that the Libya question felt very rushed and was clearly something that Obama wanted to avoid like the plague.  With Crowley’s intervention, he was largely able to do so as she managed to create a distraction and take up time.  This was truly deplorable conduct on her part and I truly hope she is never allowed to moderate a debate ever again due to this miscarriage of justice.

I think Crowley’s antics, both on the Libya question and her repeated follow-up questions, clearly stacked the deck against Romney to such a degree that objective scoring of this debate is extremely difficult to do.  I’m still going to try, though. 

Regardless of the moderator, Obama had a much stronger and aggressive performance this time around than last time.  He was also clearly the beneficiary of lowered expectations given the previous debate.  Romney’s performance was not as strong as the first outing, but was not terrible by any means.  He got visibly flustered toward the end, but his final answer was very solid and he managed to use that to regain composure.  I must say I was impressed by the ability of both candidates to pivot the assault rifle question into discussions of culture.  This was masterfully done by both candidates and makes perfect sense, seeing as how Romney’s gun record isn’t strong enough for the GOP base and Obama’s anti-gun record isn’t strong enough for the Democrat base.

Given Obama’s lowered expectations, Romney’s elevated expectations and momentum surge, plus the deck being stacked so heavily against Romney by the moderator, I can absolutely see why the initial reaction and consensus were that Obama won.  It is noteworthy that such a significant portion of the viewer base still believes Romney won in spite of it all.  I can’t fault people for thinking that because, given the tailwinds Obama had going for him, Obama should have decisively won that debate.  Realistically, I can’t fault anyone for saying Obama won this debate, either.

However, I reject that conclusion that Obama won.  My view is this debate is a pyrrhic victory for Obama, which I suppose means I ultimately see it as a victory for Romney.  What this debate did is it provided powerful and high-profile evidence to bolster the (compelling) case that the liberal media is pulling out all the stops to help Obama win.  This is important because the criticism that the liberal media (correctly) levies against the conservative media for bias is effectively nullified.

This controversial second debate definitely sets the stage for an interesting third debate on Monday.  I'll actually watch that one live, but refrain from live commentary.  I find it too hard to focus. 

Gay Marriage Legalized in Maryland and Thoughts on the Path to Legalization

Mentioning the issue in my last post reminded me that I haven’t put out an update on this issue in a while.  This one will be a bit longer than normal.  I considered breaking it into two posts, but didn't.

Continuing a string of gay rights victories, Maryland recently legalized gay marriage.  It is the eighth state to do so (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, Washington state, and Washington DC already allow it).  As a side note, New Hampshire also recently defeated a bill in its legislature to overturn its gay marriage law, so that’s another win. 

Like Washington state, there is an effort in Maryland to put gay marriage up for popular referendum in the fall.  In addition, Maine is expected to have gay marriage on the ballot in the fall.  Minnesota and North Carolina are still expected to have gay marriage bans on the ballot in the fall, as well.  California remains a hotbed due to the recent overturn of Proposition 8, as does the federal level (DOMA).

To this point, I’ve been content to leave aside the question of what is the most appropriate avenue for getting gay marriage legalized.  I want to look at that here.  There are court rulings, the legislative process, and popular referendum at the state level, along with DOMA, the legislative process, and potentially the Supreme Court on the federal level.  I’ve never looked into the possibility of a popular referendum on the federal level, but I suppose it is possible in theory. 

Here’s the reality.  In the United States, the rights of the minority are not subject to the will of the majority.  It is one of the most fundamental underpinnings of the Constitution.  We see it repeatedly throughout the document, like the 14^th Amendment as I’ve laid out before.  This very basic tenet of America is the reason popular referendum, be it on the state or federal level, is simply not an appropriate way to address the matter.

So, with popular referendum out, we are left with the legal or legislative process.  They are simultaneously somewhat parallel, yet related, paths to the same end.  The courts could (and should) keep overturning gay marriage bans and upholding gay marriage legalization based on the Constitution, but they are limited by the cases brought before them.  The legislature, on the other hand, can write and pass a bill at any time (assuming the will is there, of course).  Both are appropriate paths to legalizing gay marriage.

We’re also left with the question of whether state-level or national-level action is appropriate.  This is kind of tricky.  On one hand, we have the states’ rights question, which I’ll address below.  On the other hand, even if we break away from the 14^th Amendment or legal rights issue, we see two additional layers. 

First, it’s my view that individual freedom is the ultimate deciding factor.  Basically, it’s the, “My rights end at your face,” line of thought.  I would pose the question to opponents how their rights are infringed upon by allowing gay marriage (it’s very obvious the rights of gay people have been infringed upon by being denied the right to marry).  This is actually a very significant question and I see no valid answer provided religious organizations are not forced against their will to marry gay people.  So, the rights of gay people are being restricted and ending that infringement would not impact everyone else.  This is an important underpinning to the gay marriage argument, and with that, we can move on to the next step.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and was written with the intent not to limit the rights of the individual, but to limit the power of the government to limit individual freedom.  Simply put, if the local and state governments are unwilling to take the appropriate action to ensure the rights of the individual, then the federal government is obligated to intervene to that end.  The inverse also applies, meaning that the state and local governments must also take appropriate action to ensure individual rights should the federal government attempt to violate them.  In other words, the rights of the individual trump the rights of the government on all levels.  The Civil Rights movement is a great historical example of the concept.  This can get very philosophical very quickly and we can branch off into a lot of other questions, but I want to stay on topic here and move onto the next facet of the federal versus state action discussion.

Second, as I’ve written before, a marriage license issued by one state must be recognized by all other states per federal law.  This is often framed in terms of age.  Suppose State A’s legal age for marriage is 16 and State B’s is 18.  If a pair of 16-year olds get married in A and go to B before turning 18, B still must recognize their marriage.  The same logic applies to marriage licenses for gay couples.  Alabama, for example, acts illegally when they refuse to recognize the legitimacy of marriage licenses issued to gay couples by another state (to my knowledge, Alabama is the only state to do this).  Interstate issues like that often ultimately require federal-level arbitration. 

The bottom line here is that, between the 14^th Amendment and interstate issues, federal-level resolution will ultimately be necessary to at least some degree unless all 50 states legalize gay marriage on their own.  I think DOMA would have to be overturned somehow (legislative process or Supreme Court ruling) because, as I’ve detailed before, a large number of states defer to DOMA.  Additionally, federal action that either explicitly disallows state-level bans on gay marriage and/or legalizes gay marriage throughout the USA may be necessary.

What about a Constitutional amendment?  It would be pointless because it would be entirely redundant to the 14^th Amendment.  We’ve seen this before.  Feminists were agitating for a similar amendment for women a few decades ago.  Back then, the amendment ultimately failed to gain traction due to the redundancy logic.  A similar amendment for gay marriage would fail in the same way for the same reason.

Note the absence of the executive branch.  Though it can serve as a bully pulpit, I don’t view executive action, either by a governor or a president, as a viable or legal path to legalization.  The executive branch lacks the power to do this unilaterally, though this hasn’t stopped them from trying (and often succeeding) to stretch/abuse their power in many other areas (also known as the imperial presidency).  Indeed, the executive branch on either level can be completely locked out from the process.  Legislatures can often overturn an executive veto with a 2/3 majority in both houses, the judicial branch is largely independent of the executive branch, and popular referendum doesn’t involve the executive branch at all.  The executive branch also has no place in the amendment process of the Constitution.

All that said, I’m a pragmatist on the matter and I want to see it legalized as widely as possible as quickly as possible.  The state legislative process is probably the best way to go on the offensive (as long of a grind as it is to get through 40+ more states), whereas the state legal process can be used more for both offense and defense (bearing in mind the limitations imposed by what cases face the courts). 

Given the 0 for 31 record gay marriage supporters have in state popular referendum, I have a different take there.  Principle and strategic disadvantage make popular referendum a bad place to be.  Obviously, playing defense there to counter bans is vital, but it’s not the place to play offense.  Victories here are still essential, especially on defense.  Going on offense in Maine is risky only in the sense that the odds of success aren’t favorable based on history, but there is nothing to lose besides resources and there is everything to gain because another state would legalize gay marriage and the momentum of a first popular referendum win would be very powerful.

Barack Obama and the Constitution

For my 100^th post, I wanted do something a bit more encompassing than I usually do, something that spans the 99 previous posts.  Because I write about a lot of different things, it’s not easy to string it all together, so I decided to take a look at Barack Obama’s presidency as it relates to the Constitution.  I figure this can help people assess his presidency.

Like it or not, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  On the whole, I think Obama’s record on the Constitution is not favorable (even compared to his predecessor, George W. Bush, who had a bad record here) and we see several areas in which he has either applied the Constitution in a questionable manner or ignored it entirely.  I find this tragically ironic because he was a professor of Constitutional law.  I’d think he’d use that expertise to uphold the Constitution rather than dismantle it so he could build an imperial presidency.  I’ve gone into detail previously on many of these, so this is more of a list rather than an expansive review of each scenario. 

On the negative side, we start with the Obamacare individual mandate, which would force an individual to engage in commerce by purchasing a government-approved health insurance product or face the consequences.  I think the Supreme Court got the ruling wrong by upholding it as a tax and it’s a very dangerous precedent, so I will count it against Obama (I’ll do a future post about the ruling and my opinion may change).  Feel free to disagree on either the constitutionality of the measure or my counting it against Obama’s constitutional record. 

Next, there’s this whole recess appointment business, in which Obama has disregarded checks and balances by attempting recess appointments while Congress was not in recess. 

Then, there was the Libya situation (probably others, as well) and Obama’s disregard for the War Powers Act.  At least when Bush took us into Afghanistan and Iraq, he took the time to get it approved by Congress versus Obama simply committing our forces to the effort without Congress’ approval.  We’ve also recently learned through the New York Times that Obama has continued and expanded the Bush administration’s cyber attacks on Iran’s nuclear program, which could be taken as an act of war.

More recently, he sidestepped Congress with regards to immigration by basically implementing portions of the DREAM Act via executive order.  Article I, Section 8 clearly empowers Congress, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” which is the Founding Fathers’ way of saying that the president cannot unilaterally set immigration policy and Congress has power in the matter.  Note that Congress has repeatedly rejected the DREAM Act in a show of checks and balances, not obstructionism.  This also gets into the 14^th Amendment questions I’ve previously discussed regarding citizenship in the US.

The biggest problems of all were in the “War on Terror”.  If you thought Bush was bad here, wait until you see how Obama’s taken the torch and run with it during his term.  In general, yes it was George W. Bush who started us down this tyrannical path and laid the foundation for the future, but Barack Obama has gone down that path even more aggressively.  Here are a few examples of how Obama built upon Bush’s foundation.

Bush opened Guantanamo Bay and Obama went back on his campaign promise to close it (hypocrisy aside, the facility’s existence violates so much of the Constitution that I don’t even know where to start).    

Bush increased security at airports, which was bad enough, but Obama’s taken that to a whole new level with invasive body scans and searches, trampling the 4^th Amendment like I mentioned a while back. 

Bush also expanded the military commissions instead of and in addition to the courts for trials.  Obama has continued this practice.  I’ve also questioned the constitutionality of using military commissions versus civilian courts (at least with regard to US citizens).

But, wait, there’s more because Obama’s done a lot to blaze his own path.  Obama also assassinated Anwar al Awlaki, who was an American citizen.  This tramples on the 5^th, 6^th, 8^th, and 14^th Amendments (probably others, too).  I didn’t post about Anwar al Awlaki at the time because I was unable to verify his US citizenship, but I did recently and this episode becomes another bad one for Obama.  The government can’t be allowed to murder its own citizens.  Also, note the details recently published by the New York Times about the hitlist meetings. 

As if assassinating an American citizen wasn’t bad enough, Obama also more recently signed the NDAA to authorize the indefinite detention of US citizens without the right of a trial.  Surely, I can’t be the only one who’s troubled by a president who thinks he has the authority to indefinitely detain and/or murder American citizens (and, as I’ve mentioned before, there’s a school of thought suggesting that the legal protections outlined in the Constitution should be extended beyond US citizens to non-citizens). 

It gets even worse as Obama also recently signed an executive order updating the government’s power of eminent domain as it applies to “emergency” situations.  This is not limited to war and can be applied during times of peace.  Essentially, the government says it is allowed to seize and control pretty much anything it wants (food, water, energy, raw materials, etc.).  To be fair, the only real changes from the 1994 version of the order were to add in the Department of Homeland Security, so we can really only blame Obama here for upholding too broad of an existing power rather than new power like elsewhere in this list.

We’ll close this sorry list out with a quick mention of the NSA’s new Utah facility, which is another attack on our individual legal rights, as it enables the government to implement Obama’s recent guidance to the intelligence community stating that he thinks they now can store digital information on US citizens with no suspected ties to terrorism for up to five years (versus the previous directive to destroy it immediately).

On the positive side, Obama did stand up for the 1^st Amendment with regards to SOPA/PIPA, essentially forcing those bills to be dramatically altered, scrapped entirely, and/or restarted from scratch out of concerns for free speech and cybersecurity.  I’m sure this isn’t the end for the matter and I see this as an ongoing battle.

Obama gets both credit and criticism on gay rights.  He repealed DADT.  Obama has not yet pushed for a full repeal of DOMA and its unconstitutional measures, but he has stopped defending it.  So, he gets credit for agreeing with me on the constitutionality of DOMA.  However, the problem is the president is required by the Constitution to, “Take care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” per Article 3, Section 3.  So, he’s violating the Constitution in the process here.  We can’t have a president deciding that, just because he disagrees with a law, he won’t enforce it, whether we like the law or not.  The same goes for a president trying to enforce a law that doesn’t exist.  Both are dangerous.  Again, this is an ongoing battle.

Did I miss any?

I think it can always be worse, but I’m not about to detail exactly how.  Obama doesn’t need my help in coming up with ways to trample the Constitution.

Gay Rights Victories in Washington State and California Plus Defeat in New Jersey

We have two more victories for the gay rights movement and one defeat.  First, Washington state recently approved a law allowing gay marriage, becoming the seventh state to allow it (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, and Washington DC already allow it).  The law won’t take effect until 7 June.  There will certainly be challenges to Washington state’s action.  I suspect that, if anything, these measures will merely delay and ultimately fail to stop the legalization of gay marriage in Washington state.

Also, Proposition 8 was struck down by the 9^th Circuit Court.  This upholds a lower court ruling.  Prop 8 is a ban on gay marriage passed by California voters.  In this most recent ruling, the court was careful to confine its ruling only to California and not to extrapolate it further (which makes sense given the scope of Prop 8).  Confining the ruling to California is important because this court has jurisdiction over multiple states. 

This is not a surprise to me.  It was struck down on the grounds that it violates the 14^th Amendment rights of gay people in California.  This is essentially the same exact rationale I’ve pointed out repeatedly in the past, so I won’t restate it.

Going forward, gay marriage will not yet be allowed in California, as Prop 8 supporters have been given time to formulate their next move.  Most likely, their next move will be to appeal to the entire 9^th Circuit Court (11 members, versus the three members who ruled 2-1 here).   Unquestionably, the ruling is a victory for the gay rights movement.  It’s about as total of a victory as could be expected, but the legalities are not over.

Despite the good news, there was still a defeat in New Jersey.  The state legislature passed a bill this week, but the governor, Chris Christie, vetoed it based on his belief that popular vote should decide the matter instead of the legislative process.  Note that a 2/3 majority in both houses of the New Jersey legislature could overturn the veto.  The bill passed the Senate 24-16 mostly on party lines (two Democrats votes against it and two Republicans voted for it) and 42-33 in the Assembly.  Both houses are short of the 2/3 requirement for a veto and I suspect this is how it will remain.  I view this as a minor setback and Christie delaying the inevitable in New Jersey, but still a defeat nevertheless.

On a side note, I suspect Christie has presidential ambitions, and not vetoing the bill would hurt future efforts to rise through the GOP.  In order to become president, you have to first become your party’s nominee.  This is all a whole other topic, of course, so I won’t delve further here.

There are other battlegrounds, too.  Maryland is shaping up to follow the lead of Washington and New Jersey with legislative debate.  Longer term, there could be a proposal on the ballot in Maine this year to allow gay marriage, along with proposals in North Carolina and Minnesota to ban gay marriage. 

As I’ve discussed previously, the biggest battle is on the federal level regarding DOMA.  The Obama administration is no longer defending DOMA, but merely refusing to defend the law doesn’t eliminate it as a threat because the refusal to defend DOMA can easily be reversed in the future.  Only a full repeal of DOMA works here.  Unconstitutional as it may be, don’t expect anything to happen on this front in an election year, but be aware of its importance.

In general, I’ve been content to leave aside the question of what is the most appropriate avenue for getting gay marriage legalized.  Even in this post, we’ve seen court rulings, the legislative process, and popular referendum discussed at the state level, along with DOMA on the federal level (the Supreme Court may even end up involved).  The issue is a whole post in itself and is now in my backlog.

Considering how many states have yet to legalize gay marriage, it’s kind of surprising that a pair of decisive wins (and potentially more) come so close together if we were to consider these events in a vacuum. Maybe it’s not so shocking if we consider them together because the Prop 8 ruling would have given the Washington state legislature and governor the necessary political push to pass a measure legalizing gay marriage.  Either way, these are two huge victories and one minor setback in a much longer struggle. 

Occupy Wall Street versus Other Movements

I laid out a bunch of similarities between Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the Tea Party (TP) in a previous post about OWS when I said, “Also, both movements were leaderless grassroots movements in their beginnings that were formed over the interwebs and stemmed from anger over America’s current condition and trajectory, and both appear to have the same goal of getting America back firing on all cylinders, though they clearly disagree on how to do that.” 

In that same post, I also asked, “Riddle me this.  How is OWS any different than the TP?”  None of those similarities have broken down, but I think I have some answers to my riddle, which I’ll detail here.  I don’t want to limit this to just OWS and the TP, so you’ll see some other comparisons crop up.

The first I see is lawlessness.  I don’t remember any TP incidents in which 700 people got arrested like this Brooklyn Bridge ordeal.  I don’t remember hearing about over 100 arrests like what happened in Boston.  I don’t even remember hearing about double-digit numbers of arrests at TP events, and I’ve heard a lot of those in the past few weeks regarding OWS.  This holds up even when we back out the Brooklyn Bridge incident and even when we consider the fact that the TP is a few years old while OWS is a few weeks old.  Admittedly, this is hard to track because defining an OWS/TP arrest isn’t exactly black and white, but I find this difference revealing.  Try doing quick searches of OWS and TP arrests and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

This lawlessness undercuts my original theory comparing OWS and the TP.  A more viable comparison in this sense thus may be the protests in London this year, as suggested to me by a lady on Twitter.  London’s were protesting youth unemployment and moved beyond protests into riots.  Youth unemployment, though still a major issue, isn’t as big of a problem in America, and OWS hasn’t yet crossed the line from protests to riots, so in those senses, it’s smaller on both scales than the incidents in London.  I hope OWS doesn’t cross that line, and I don’t think they will.

Next, the TP always had clear goals, even if their goals evolved with time.  Obamacare has always been in the TP’s crosshairs as one of their targets, for example.  The goal was originally to stop its passage, but now that it’s passed, the goal is to weaken and/or repeal it.  That’s focus.  It’s not their only focus because the TP also wants to oust Obama, among other things.  I’ve consistently asked what OWS’ goals are with regards to specific policies.  OWS has no shortage of things they’re protesting about, such as income inequality, corporate money in politics, and bailouts (common ground with the TP there), but they say they don’t really have any actual specific policy goals or haven’t really thought about it yet.  I also hear that it’s not their job to come up with those.  I’m not going to yet again go into how anger alone isn’t enough and you need to actually have a plan to improve things before you propose replacing the current system (yes, in the future, I will continue unapologetically pounding on this until I get answers because I can’t support or oppose a movement if I don’t understand not just what it wants to do, but how it wants to do it).  For now, all I’ll do is highlight that as a difference between the two and leave it at that.  This lack of clear goals again lends to the London rioters being the better comparison than the TP. 

Third, I’ve previously talked about OWS policy goals, but I haven’t yet touched on the movement’s overall goals.  This one flies counter to both the TP and London riots and introduces new comparisons.  With the TP, it was apparent to me pretty much even from the beginning that the TP, grassroots as it was at the start, was an insurrection or rebellion or even civil war within the GOP.  I never viewed the TP as seriously wanting to become its own political party.  The TP, in essence, aimed to reclaim (or hijack, depending on your perspective) the GOP.  The TP did not seriously want to form their own party when they could get their message out through an existing party.

OWS is different.  I don’t get the vibe that OWS is trying to reclaim/hijack the Democratic party.  After all, if we’re operating under the assumption that OWS formed on the left, then Obama is their guy and history shows that a schism within a party usually gives victory to the other party.  Look at the 1992 and 1996 elections involving Bill Clinton, Ross Perot, George Bush Sr., and Bob Dole for some recent examples.  Rather, I think OWS is more likely to try to form their own third party.  My theory stems from the history of the left wing in America.  Outside of a couple select times in American history, such as the early 1900’s with Eugene Debs’ Socialist party and the schism of the Democratic party during the 1968 presidential election, there really hasn’t been a powerful and overt far left-wing presence in American politics.  We can quibble about exactly how left-wing the modern Democratic party is, but it’s hard to argue that they’re further to the left than the Socialist party or 1968 Democrat party.  I’ve seen calls online for this and I’ve heard this in second-hand discussion with people participating in the protests and general assemblies.  It’s definitely something to watch.

In general, I’ve shied away from comparing OWS to the Arab Spring (AS), despite the fact that both formed heavily through social media.  There are monumental and insurmountable differences between the two.  For one, the AS protesters were attempting to establish a more democratic and less oppressive government with a more open economy, while the OWS protesters are railing against a democratic republic and capitalist economy that they feel has failed them.  Realistically speaking, the AS is starting from far more dire straits than OWS is.  Two, AS protesters were in far greater danger than OWS protesters are.  AS protesters knew that if they failed, they would probably be rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and eventually killed (very much like America’s Founding Fathers).  By contrast, an OWS protester would merely get arrested or sprayed, maybe whacked a couple times by a baton or brought down by a police dog or tazed or something like that.  Three, the AS had a clear goal.  In Egypt, it ended up demanding regime change, for instance.  As I’ve mentioned previously, OWS lacks a clear goal.

I also disagree with comparing OWS to other movements throughout US history, such as the civil rights movement and feminist movement of the mid to late 1900’s and the gay rights movement of today.  This is mainly because of the clear vision those movements had for goals.  They all knew they wanted equal rights for themselves, but they also knew specifically what rights they wanted and specifically what policies to target.  For example, the gay rights movement knows they want to be able to serve openly in the military and they know they want to be able to get legally married, thus they have already successfully had Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) repealed.  They can marry in several states and have civil unions or domestic partnerships in others.  They are even working to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which may come to a vote soon in Congress.  OWS doesn’t have this clarity and, though they may eventually, they do not presently.  

While I’m on the topic of OWS, I want to take this opportunity to voice my condemnation for some of the blatantly anti-American stuff going on in their crowds.  It’s not the whole crowd, or even a majority of the crowd, and it’s probably not even a big portion of the crowd.  It’s a minority of the crowd, but it is still troubling.  It’s an example of a couple of fools ruining it for the rest.  The worst I’ve seen is a picture of a protester defecating on a burning American flag.  I will not be posting links to that image here, but you can easily find it on Google if you don’t believe me.  I’m not demonizing all of the OWS protesters because I do believe the overwhelming majority of them care about America, love it, and want to strengthen it (clearly, they differ with me regarding how to go about strengthening America), but such conduct is wholly unacceptable.  Everyone has their 1^st Amendment rights, as I’m exercising here and they’re exercising there, but conduct like the picture mentioned above is deplorable.  Really, the situation is a case of, “Can you?  Should you?”  Regarding these anti-American displays, they can do them from a 1^st Amendment perspective, but they should not.  I’m going to go out on a limb and say public defecation is probably illegal, so in that sense, they cannot do what they did.  Can anybody tell me how that kind of conduct adds value to the cause?  I didn’t think so.

Will OWS turn into a political force?  Will it burn out or fade away?  The answers to these questions depend on whether OWS can break away from similarity to the London riots and coalesce like the other movements I mentioned. 

Legal Same-Sex Marriage in New York State

Right before I left for vacation, New York state legalized same-sex marriage after a fairly dramatic series of events (by state law standards, anyway). The law went into effect on July 24, 2011. I’ve been remiss getting this post up because of the debt ceiling and downgrade wrangling, but now I’m getting this one up because I need a quick break from those things. New York is a particularly big deal for several reasons.

First, and most importantly, I think the events in New York are enormously instructive for both advocates and opponents of gay marriage. The big hang-up in New York was exactly what I’ve previously described, namely the different connotations of the word ‘marriage’. Remember, I’ve long contended that supporters are discussing marriage in strictly a legal sense while opponents are thinking mainly in a religious one. This miscommunication came into play in New York because the major legislative sticking point was ensuring sufficient legal protections from discrimination lawsuits for religious organizations that do not wish to marry gay people. Once the supporters were able to assure the religious organizations that their rights were in no way under attack and ensure the necessary legal protections were in place, the bill was able to pass.

Memo to gay marriage supporters: make sure you’re very clear that you’re only talking about the marriage in a legal sense and make your case based on the legal differences between marriages versus civil unions, domestic partnerships, or whatever else your state has.

Memo to gay marriage opponents: this isn’t about forcing a religious organization against its will to marry gay people. It’s about ensuring access to legal rights for gay couples.

Second, New York state, specifically Greenwich Village, was the location of the Stonewall Riots of 1969. Without going into too much detail here, the Stonewall Riots were a major event in the galvanization of the modern gay rights movement. Some view this event as the birth of the movement while some cite other events. I’m not going into that debate here. All I’m going to say is the legalization of gay marriage in the state where such a crucial event occurred is a tremendous victory for the movement.

Third, New York is by far the most populous state to finally legalize gay marriage. New York joins Washington DC (not technically a state, I know), Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont as places in the US that allow same-sex marriage, with Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Massachusetts each lacking laws that explicitly ban same-sex marriage.

As far as I know, every other state has a law and/or constitutional amendment of its own and/or the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) banning same-sex marriage, with Alabama being of particular note because, unlike every other state, it refuses to ever recognize a same-sex marriage even when it was legally done in another state (I think Alabama is acting illegally in doing so).

21 of these states have DOMA alone on the matter. If DOMA disappears, these states will become battlegrounds, as they’ll join the three states mentioned above as lacking explicit bans on same-sex marriage. As I posted previously, the Obama administration is no longer defending the pertinent section of DOMA in court after it was ruled unconstitutional by a Federal district court. With this, DOMA is unofficially sidelined. Until DOMA is either repealed by Congress (and signed by the president) or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, DOMA is still an issue. Why? Some future president may come in and disagree with Obama’s view of DOMA and resume defending it. Outside of the DOMA situation, California is currently the biggest and probably most interesting battleground, with the current questions of legality regarding their Proposition 8.

This is a major victory for the gay rights movement, but there’s still a lot of work to be done and it needs to be pushed quickly while there’s a somewhat amicable government in Washington DC for the gay rights movement. For all of the shameful faults and epic failures, Barack Obama and the 2008-2010 Congress did more for the gay rights movement than any government I can think of (the 2010-2012 Congress will likely not be so accommodating due to the GOP control of the House of Representatives). The courts have also been consistently ruling in favor of the gay rights movement on several issues.

It’s possible the GOP will maintain its majority in the House of Representatives and it may even pick up a majority in the Senate in the 2012 election. This would make it very difficult to get a repeal of DOMA through Congress. More importantly, if the GOP manages to take the White House in 2012, it’s possible the new president will not only veto a hypothetical repeal of DOMA, but actually resume defending the law in court. Of course, this depends on who the GOP puts up as their ticket. Several candidates in the field, such as Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, are very conservative on social issues, whereas others, like Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney, are more moderate on social issues. Furthermore, a GOP president may be more likely to appoint judges that are less friendly to the gay rights movement. Lastly, if the state and national governments goes far enough to the right, the movement to add a marriage amendment to the Constitution may gain traction, but I don’t view this as likely because it would take a drastic shift to the right.

Follow the GOP primaries very closely because they will be key to the future of the gay rights movement. The victory in New York may be short-lived if the sands shift in the coming elections.

Another Gay Rights Victory

The gay rights movement is on a roll. First, the Obama administration repealed DADT. Now, the Obama administration will no longer defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. DOMA was passed in 1996 (yes, right around the time we got the DADT policy). Section 3 is the portion of the law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. It was ruled unconstitutional by a Federal district court in July 2010, and this week, the Obama administration announced they would no longer defend the law.

I’ve posted previously about gay rights and I won’t go through my full position (gay marriage bans run astray of the 14^th amendment). Suffice it to say that I think gay people should enjoy full equal legal rights including legal marriage, though I don’t think a church should have to marry gay couples if it doesn’t want to (I differentiate between legal and religious marriage). I agree with the Obama administration’s conclusions about the unconstitutional nature of DOMA Section 3. This is a monumental victory for the gay rights movement. It’s not over yet, though.

The Obama administration deserves some praise for getting this one right. Hehe…combine the gay rights victories (DADT and DOMA) with my recent thumbs-up to Obama for endorsing the death of the GE alternate engine for the F35, and I’ve probably praised Obama more in the past 2+ months than I have in the past 2+ years. You might even think Obama’s converted me. :-p In all seriousness, I’m fiercely critical of the Obama administration’s missteps, but that cuts both ways because I’ll also gladly give the credit when they get it right. I think the best part of Obama's legacy will be the progress made on gay rights during his presidency.

I’m also interested in the political considerations. From Obama’s perspective, this is a win-win. I think he’s wanted this to happen, so it’s a personal win for him. It’s also a political win because he can energize his base by saying, “Not only did we repeal DADT, like I promised during the 2008 election, but we’re killing DOMA. I did what I promised and then some.” It will also diffuse some criticism Obama’s received from the gay rights movement for what’s essentially political double-speak (or hypocrisy). Up until now, Obama has argued that DOMA Section 3 was unconstitutional, yet his administration has continued to defend it. That’s no longer a valid criticism, and should help galvanize his left-wing base for the 2012 election. Personally, I think he’ll have to do more to energize the left-wing base if the 2010 election was any indication. This is also probably why he’s digging in so aggressively with regards to the, “Assault on unions,” (his words) that’s going on in Wisconsin. Combine this effort to invigorate the base with his attempts to look like he’s coming to the center on economic matters in hopes of picking up some independent and marginally-attached voters, and I think it’s very obvious that Obama’s ramping up the reelection efforts.

So how will the GOP respond? Honestly, I think (and hope) they’ll pretty much let this one go without turning it into a brawl. It’d be wise for them to do so. Sure, you’ll probably see some social conservatives come out and decry Obama’s decision as an assault on American family values and/or they’ll have a bout of the judicial hypocrisy I recently discussed. However, I expect this will be fairly minimal because the political risks would be too great for the GOP to take an aggressive stand against Obama’s actions here.

I think the Tea Party influence will temper the GOP response and keep the social conservatives in check. The Tea Party’s main focus seems to be economic/fiscal policy. Though some of them are social conservatives themselves, my impression is they view social issues (gay rights, abortion, the environment, etc.) as secondary to economic/fiscal policy. There’s also a significant libertarian element to the Tea Party, an element that wants limited government that butts out of an individual’s everyday life and generally allows people to live their lives. Combine the primary/secondary focus dynamic with the libertarian dynamic, and I suspect they’ll largely sit this one out.

That said, just as the democrats have done repeatedly in the past, the GOP has also previously blown my mind (several times) by doing some very stupid things that I couldn’t have seen coming without a working crystal ball. So, we’ll see what happens.

Extension:

I thought more about this, and something else dawned on me. I think the democrats realized that the gay rights movement was gaining too much momentum and they could no longer count on the gay vote as solid democrat votes. There is a small movement within the GOP called the Log Cabin Republicans who advocate for gay rights that's been gaining momentum within conservative circles. I think the democrats feared they were losing their grip on the gay vote and have reacted to firm it up.

DADT – I’m Asked to Tell My Thoughts

I’ve been asked to tell my thoughts on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Honestly, I think it’s time to repeal this policy. I have several justifications for thinking so. I’d also like to address some of the concerns that are frequently mentioned by opponents of repeal.

First, from a legal perspective, as far as I know, we’re not allowed to discriminate based upon sexual orientation anywhere else. Employers aren’t allowed to use sexual orientation in their hiring/firing decisions. There’s also the matter of the court’s ruling that the military must repeal the policy, citing the Constitution. I don’t want to spend too much time on legalities here, though.

The common counter is that the military is different, and it sure is a unique work environment, but its differences actually make it more conducive to a change in policy like this. Opponents of repealing the policy right now claim it would be a burdensome additional distraction on the military while it’s engaged in war. I’d argue that there’s no better time to implement such a change than during war because the individuals are focused so intensely on the enemy that this policy change would be a minimal distraction. By contrast, if we tried to repeal this policy during peacetime, it would likely be much more disruptive because there’s more idle time for it to become a distraction. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agrees. He’s quoted as saying, “War does not stifle change; it demands it. It does not make it harder; it facilitates it.”

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my dealings and talks with military personnel (past, present, and future), it’s that they are extremely mission-oriented and professional, so much so that they wouldn’t let something like sexual orientation interfere with unit cohesion. Many of them think of the person in the foxhole next to them as a brother/sister-in arms first and foremost, with no regard for stuff like race, gender, or sexual orientation. They just care about having that person’s back and whether that person will have their back.

This level of professionalism applies not only to how the straight people in the military would react, but also the homosexuals. It’s not as though there’s going to be a flamboyant coming-out party. Indeed, the overwhelming majority will probably still keep their sexual orientation to themselves. The Pentagon’s report showed that only 15% of those who identified (anonymously) as homosexual would have their sexual orientation known to everyone in their unit. Even if they’re open about it, homosexuals are generally very respectful of personal boundaries in my experience. If, hypothetically, one started hitting on someone, all that person has to do is say, “Thanks, but I’m straight,” or something to that effect and the message is usually clearly understood. No doubt, this would all be part of training that every person in the military would go through to minimize the impact should DADT be repealed.

Unit cohesion is often cited as a source of worry for opponents of repeal. I’m not too concerned about this, to be honest. All manner of non-military units function just fine with openly homosexual members, ranging from fire and police departments to sports teams to any sort of work crew (construction, design, accounting, legal, etc.). Why would the military be any different?

Opponents of repeal also claim that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would diminish the toughness of our military. They believe the military should resemble our enemy’s worst nightmare, and I agree. But, the current enemy is radical Islam, which is well known for its hatred and fear of homosexuals (non-radical Islam is often tolerant of homosexuality). I’d think homosexuals with guns would be one of their worst nightmares.

Opponents also worry about the repeal hurting recruitment. I don’t think it’ll have a big impact. Homosexuals already serve in the military and they always have, even if we don’t know who is and who isn’t among them. America has become more tolerant of homosexuality as time goes on. We’ve discharged ~13,000 people under DADT, and if we’ve got such a shortage that we’re allowing active gang members to serve, why not allow open homosexuals? Active gang members worry me much more than open homosexuals.

They have a lot to do, but I’m hopeful Congress will repeal DADT during this lame-duck session. I think the GOP is stalling until the new Congress since the Pentagon report didn’t confirm their position.

Reframing the Gay Marriage Discussion

I had an enlightening discussion recently on gay marriage involving people running the spectrum on the issue. This revealed much about the current discussion and made me realize we have a failure to communicate. It’s also made me realize that if gay rights advocates want to make progress, they must reframe the discussion. The word ‘marriage’ is the big hang-up. It means different things to supporters and opponents. I see many supporters view it from a legal perspective while many opponents view it from a religious/lifestyle perspective.

First, let’s see the legal perspective. I’d argue that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states, “[…] No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State […] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Marriage should be considered a privilege and has significant legal ramifications. Whether a man wants to marry a woman, a woman wants to marry a man, a man wants to marry another man, or a woman wants to marry another woman, we’ve got legally-consenting adult humans. Denying gay marriage is akin to denying two people from creating and signing a legally-binding contract.

Constitutionality aside, there are monumental legal differences between civil unions and marriages. Obviously, these vary from state to state, but there are two key general differences. First, civil unions often entail far fewer legal benefits than marriages. Second, the federal government makes states recognize each other’s marriage licenses even if laws conflict, but not necessarily civil unions. 16-year olds married legally in a state with a minimum age of 16 can go to a state where the minimum age is 18 and still have their marriage license recognized, but a civil union in one state may or may not be recognize by another state.

These differences are critical to the debate and few opponents of gay marriage appear to be aware of it. This is important because I often here no objection to equal legal rights from opponents of gay marriage. “I don’t have any problem with equal rights for gays, but I do have a problem with gay marriage,” or something like that, suggesting a communication disconnect.

When opponents hear the word ‘marriage’, they’re worried about an attack on the religious and lifestyle aspects of marriage. Some worry that if they support gay marriage, the government will intervene and force religious organizations against their will to marry gay people. This should not be viewed as a credible threat because it is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment and of the rights of religious organizations. It is also not what supporters want.

Another common worry is that gay marriage is an assault on straight marriage. One presumption here is that marriage as an institution is put in place to ensure the orderly upbringing of children. I challenge this because it misses two key points. First, though gay couples cannot procreate without help, they are still capable of adopting and being good parents. There are many kids in the adoption system who would take gay foster parents over no foster parents. Second, if children are marriage’s primary purpose, why are marriage licenses granted to those who cannot have kids and those who can have kids, but choose not to?

I believe opponents of gay marriage feel threatened. They feel as though their way of life is under attack. Many feel as though they would be somehow forced to accept homosexuality as normal or something to this effect. Gays are a minority in the USA, no doubt about it. But, remember that one of the founding principles of our great nation is that even though we respect the will of the majority, we cannot violate the rights of the minority in the process.

I recommend supporters refocus the discussion from one of gay marriage versus civil unions versus nothing to one of equal legal rights for gays. Simply stripping the word ‘marriage’ from the discussion and instead seeking ‘equal legal rights’, supporters will make much more progress. It will get them what they want and would help drain emotion from the discussion by helping those who support equal legal rights for gays, but oppose gay marriage, recognize that they truly are on the same page as the gay marriage advocates. This will lead to a consensus that should lead to equal legal rights for gays, which is the end goal.