Gay Marriage

"My God. . .Gays and Lesbians want to get married. Haven't those people suffered enough?"
-Homer Simpson



It's truly a new era when I start getting my news from facebook.

In recent days I have seen posts saying GO IOWA and TAKE THAT, CALIFORNIA. Then today there was YAY VERMONT. Not being much of a sports fan, I assumed that these were references to some tournament I was missing, and so I mostly ignored them. But it didn't take long to corroborate with the New York Times about what was actually going on.

Firstly I would like to send my congratulations to all people in all places who demand equality under the law. This is certainly a moment I know will be celebrated by many of my friends and by millions of people - sadly mostly in silence - throughout the world.


But the politico in me is still perturbed. There is almost a guarantee that under the Obama administration the rights of all peoples will be affirmed in America. So the victory of the gay marriage movement on a grand scale is almost assured. But the joys of every victory are followed shortly by the uncertainty of what to do once victory has been achieved. The morning after can be as much a time of depression as of exaltation.

The gay movement in particular has defined itself largely in opposition to the norm. When it becomes normal (at least legally) how will it define itself then? I have no doubt this question will be answered in time, and I, as much as anybody, will be curious to see what mainstream homosexuality will look like in America. It will no doubt be as colorful as the rainbow.



But my most cynical side says that gay marriage has already served its purpose. It has already cemented devastation into the country's fabric that can not be easily undone. I am referring here, not to any dastardly act by any homosexual, but to the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004.

I have written elsewhere vis a vis the Evolution/Creationism debate, that these culture war issues are largely red herrings. They are conjured up in the laboratories of political strategists with an eye towards the cold calculus of demographics.

Since the homosexuals and the scientists tend to concentrate themselves in the so-called Blue States and in predictably blue, urban areas in other states, their votes have very little impact in presidential politics. What gets people out to vote is the stirring of their (usually baser) emotions. Anger, indignation, and fear will tend to get people to pull that lever for your guy.

Gay Marriage as an issue seemed to rouse the indignation amongst gays and the indignation amongst religious folk in equal measure. But unlike the gays, the religious folk were concentrated in swing states and swing counties. This meant that if you got the religious people angry enough, they could turn a blue district red. If you got the gays angry enough, well, nothing would happen. They were already in the blue areas anyway.

The same thing was true for the evolutionary scientists. Cambridge, Manhattan, Chicago, the Bay Area and university towns throughout the country were going to vote predictably blue. So to rile them up about a non-issue like creationism made no difference. But to rile up voters in swing areas could make all the difference - and it did.

One has to ask- where did these "issues" come from? Who decided to start talking about them? Why were we not debating vehicle size with the same fervor? Perhaps it's because people drive big vehicles in every district. What about coke vs. pepsi or some other divisive issue?

The reason is demographics. These issues were "discovered" by Karl Rove & co. for their hot-button appeal in the areas where it counted the most. And his calculations proved correct. We must remind ourselves that Rove made his fortune in direct advertising - junk mail - so he was a master at demographic breakdown. And he used it to devastating effect during his electoral reign. And more impressively, he did it right under everyone's noses under the guise of "moral" or "cultural" issues.



There is actually a sane argument about gay marriage that goes largely unspoken. It is one that everyone can agree on, but since it is not useful to anyone politically, it is largely ignored.

It goes something like this: All marriages should be civil unions. Period. Marriage is a religious affair and should be left to the religious institutions to perform, monitor, etc. Leave the government out of it.

This is an idea that would have huge popularity on the right, where much of the anti-gay-marriage backers vote. Why should government be involved at all? It is intrusive and constrictive of people's liberties. This is classic right wing, anti-government boilerplate.

America used to have such a policy, in fact, but somewhere along the line, government thought it useful to "incentivize" marriage, and so it gave married people special privileges. This same noble idea underpinned the incentivization of home ownership which has led us into the financial nightmare we find ourselves in today.

Getting government out of people's private lives is a solution both the far right religious nuts and the far left gay crowd can agree on.

Politically speaking, the homosexual left would have actually benefited from this arrangement, as it would have left many one-issue conservative voters at home on election day. Or perhaps it would have put gays and conservatives on the same side of an issue, thus forcing politicians to draw their political lines differently.


Ignoring political bait is a practice for the politically savvy. The political novices (as the gay movement appears to still be) seizes on the opportunity to spout out about injustice. And morally they are right to. But politically they would do well to ask themselves, why are we being asked to do this in the first place? And is there a trap being set for us?

In this case the answer is to win a presidential election and yes. But the gay movement missed this and went after a social victory at the expense of a political one.

My fear is that the morning after party might come to recognize this. Once the battle is won and the emotions subside, it might begin to dawn on the community - what did we wind up gaining by this? And what has it cost us in terms of the "four more years" we'll be clawing our way out of for the next 20?

That remains to be seen.

But on its face, and as a matter of social justice I am glad the gays have gotten their marriages. I leave it to them to decide where to go from here and if the victory was ultimately worth the cost.