As I said in my title,  I expect the FMA to be trotted out by Rove and Bush.  I expect them to say that gay people marrying will destroy the fabric of our society...yada yada.  Typical gay bashing to get out the vote.  Our grandchildren will see this and ask us the same question that I asked my grandparents (and parents) about segregation: "America and Americans allowed that to happen?"  and "That was an acceptable position?"  No one thinks that now, and 2 generations from now, no one but the most ardent heterosexist will think that about gay marriage.

I really could not care less about that, or even about people that hate me for what I am ( a bisexual male).  They aren't going to change, and I really don't run in the same circles with them.  It just does not affect me in everyday life too much.  What does affect me is the crap that Tony Snow and the Alliance for Marriage were dropping today in public.  They distort the purpose of equal rights, and insult the people who have fought for equal rights in the past.

Snow referred to FMA as a civil right today, and tried to hide behind the reporter's definition of a civil right when questioned further about the comment.  Yes, Tony, marriage is a civil right.  One granted by the government, and one that the government has no business restricting between two people that love each other.  But Mr. Snow's administration thinks that the government should only bestow this right on certain people.  Well, Mr. Snow, I think a civil right is a basic right which the government cannot and should not interfere with or take away from people: voting,  the right to use the same public bathroom or water fountain,  the right to an equal, free education, the right to free expression, and yes the right to say to the world that I love someone and am bonded to this person in the eyes of my government, which is representative of my will.  I don't care to jump into the Orwellian underpinnings of saying that a form of intolerance is a civil right, but if that is not the in spirit of doublespeak I don't know what is.

Now, Bush is a cynical idiot abusing the intelligence of his base one more time for the mid-terms.  Again, whatever.  You want to be cynical or heterosexist, fine, whatever.  I am still going to  love other men.  All I want is that Republicans not be two faced when the polls and laws change, as they will.  They should be willing to accept the will of the people when change happens, and not hide behind a tired cliche when the will of the people go against your will.  

Yes, civil unions in Vermont and gay marriage in Massachusetts were court-mandated.  But,I found it amusing that when civil unions were made law in Conn., wingnut legislators still found the time to say this subverted the "will of the people"  even though over 3/5 of the legislators voted for the bill without any court mandate.  I just hope George Bush and whatever cynical Republican follows him in the party leadership will be able to accept the will of the people when gay marriage passes through the legislative process without court order.  Although I am sure we will hear calls about the will of the people, and propositions, or whatever they are called in your state, will be written with great indignation.  I agree lets go with the will of the people and change people's minds one person at a time.  The progress made over the last 25 years shows that with patience and strength (but not blind acceptance) even greater progress is within our grasp.

Finally, I saw a bunch of religious and secular leaders of every color and creed proclaiming to be the Alliance for Marriage.  Protestant, Catholic and Jewish, White, African-American, and Latino all stood there and told me with a straight face that marriage was in trouble, and this dead in the water amendment will save it.  Then a rabbi got up there and told me that this country was founded on diversity and tolerance.  So I was with him that far. Then he told me that a cabal of homosexual radicals were intolerant because they are attacking marriage which has created diversity in a America.  Huh?  Back up, cause I missed the logic train on that one.  We are intolerant because we are asking our government not to discriminate when two people love each other, and want the government to recognize and protect that bond?  OK, I don't think I am ever going to see that one, to each their own.  Being from a bi-religious family (mother, protestant/ father, jewish/ me, Christian), I found his comments quite cutting.

If the government says two people who love each other can't marry for any reason, why would people stop there?  Why wouldn't other bigots start moving back to race or religion as an impediment to marriage?  It is a real slippery slope.

His comments lead me in another important direction.  He implied that this radical, homosexual cabal was trying to get the government to force religions to recognize these marriages.  This is simply untrue, and any leftist worth his or her separation of church and state would recognize this.  We are all members of the American body politic, therefore we are entitled to affect change with the republic, and are privy to its rights.  We are only members of one religion or sect, and hence should only advocate change within the religion of our birth or choosing.  I was raised Methodist.  I only think I have the right to say Methodists should sanction gay marriage.  I have nothing to say about Orthodox Jews, Reform Jews, Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, or Buddhists.  Each person should only affect change inside their own religion.  I am not asking the government to make any religion do anything.  In fact, if I am unsuccessful in the Methodist church, I surely don't want the US government saying one thing to the Methodist church.

On this front,  I am a patient person.  I firmly believe in the right to marriage.  I believe the debate will eventually shift from banning it to how do we sanction gay marriage.  I understand this is a struggle that has to be won on the most personal fronts.  Coming out to heterosexuals and talking to them is the most important thing I can do.  It changes minds and hearts.  I saw it in my parents, life-long Republicans.  I know many people in the community want change now.  I understand that this oppression suffocates them.  They also can say that I can walk in the heterosexual world because I am bisexual.  They are right, it is easier for me in that regard.  Yes, I do have leeway they don't.  I would say "Be careful what you wish for".  This has to be an organic, legislative process for it to be done correctly.  We have to work on the ground and in campaigns to change minds and elect the right people.  I think Roe v. Wade is such an important precedent, in this case and in so many other ways.  What do we accomplish if a court orders social change before a majority are ready, and a backlash eventually sets us back to an  even worse point?  This could happen with abortion, and could undermine the idea of the right to privacy (including the rights sanctified in Lawrence v Texas) 30 years after Roe.  If we work hard and are patient the backlash movement will be impotent when we eventually gain the right to which every American is entitled:  the right to say to the world and your government "I love this person, and have rights because I am bonded to them in marriage."

So, yes, I am a gradualist, an assimilationist, maybe even an accommodationist, but I also love and am attracted to the same sex.  I want to be treated as an equal citizen, and I want the 13 year old gay teenager to be able to grow up in a world I did not have.  One where my government said I was a completely recognized person with the same rights as anyone else.