This sentiment will likely get me pilloried in CA, but even after participating in last night's rally in San Jose, I think it's probably a fool's choice to push for a repeal of Prop 8 right now.
In public opinion polls, we are behind by a slim margin. With a lot of work, we may be able to push that needle a couple of percentage points towards equality, but if you thought the Prop 8 battle was expensive, I think you're going to be shocked a how expensive the new battle will be. And what will it gain us? If we succeed, which is anything but certain, we will have a short time to rest on our laurels before the anti-gay side brings another constitutional amendment ballot initiative before the voters. Then it will be our turn again, then theirs, and so on and so on. It will take another decade or so before popular opinion swings far enough in our favor to make any victory we can achieve lasting.
And what exactly are we fighting for in California? Reading the court's decision closely, we're fighting over a word. Right now, gay people in Registered Domestic Partnerships have all of the rights, responsibilities, and benefits as those of us who are legally married. The State is compelled, both by law and yesterday's ruling, to treat Domestic Partnerships exactly like marriage in all intents and purposes. Yes, it is separate; yes it is disgusting; yes, I hate it; but right now, it is about as equal as we can get, at least at the state level.
I believe that where we in California should focus our attention next is at the Federal level. We need to get that part of DOMA that turns a blind eye towards committed same-sex couples overturned. More and more same-sex couples are getting legally married around the country. Yet the Federal government is forbidden by law from recognizing them. Guarantees freely given to opposite-sex couples are denied to us. There are over a thousand rights, responsibilities, and privileges granted by the Federal government to legally married opposite-sexed people. We need to set a place at the Federal table for our kind. And this may get me into more trouble with gay people around the country, but I think we should push for the Feds to recognize ONLY married people, and not try to come up with some definition of "same sex committed couples" that will incorporate some states' civil unions and domestic partnerships but not all. How does one write into law that some domestic partnerships, those that grant full marriage rights at the state level, are recognized at the Federal level, but those that only offer limited rights are not? I think the simple approach is best. We have a word for committed couples, a word that means the joining of two things, and a word that everyone understands. Let's use it.
(Parenthetically, we could try to force the term "Civil Union" on everyone, thus destroying the term "Civil Marriage", but somehow I feel that this particular battle would be an even riskier one. How would middle America react to the thought of gays and our allies literally destroying their marriages?)
Once we secure Federal rights for gay married couples, then it will be a much more difficult task for the anti-gay crowd to make a case for discrimination. Right now they can say that we lose nothing by not having the word as long as we have the strong Domestic Partnership program we have (and in many ways they are right). If by denying gays the term marriage they also deny us the 1143 or so Federal rights, responsibilities and privileges, then most fair minded people will see how harmful that discrimination is. It will be a much more tangible fight, and a much more meaningful one.
I throw this argument out there for discussion. I'm not going to stop going to rallies, I'm not going to stop sending money to our causes, and I will continue to volunteer. But being a big fan of looking hard at what we're doing and making sure our efforts are well invested, I'm saying it's time to consider more effective alternatives.