I imagine that subscribing to the full marriage thing would confound their religious appearance-- which at this time is more important for winning right-leaning voters.

I find it ironic as shit that two gay guys who championed the shit out of the Iraq War have decided that gay marriage is the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER.

While marriage inequality sucks, ask the families of our war dead which matters more: marriage inequality or "being alive" inequality.

Those who advocate gay marriage are very unlikely to vote Republican. The Dems need not worry about alienating those voters; but instead need to worry about alienating the middle class heterosexual fence sitters who could tip the election. Be realistic, a politician with convictions? Are you kidding me?

Unfortunately in our Republic, the minority generally loses. Politicians rarely help, but the courts sometimes do.

Will, as bad it may sound, those in the armed forces chose to be there, and the risks they signed up for include having a clueless C-in-C and going off to fight stupid wars; they know they can't back out of the military if a president with bad politics is elected. Gay people never signed up for an unequal set of constitutional rights; it's with us from birth till death, and it kind of matters.
Also, I don't know if Dan or Andrew said that gay marriage was the most important issue, but as an analysis of how the candidates deal with gay community (gay money in, no gay rights out) it seems pretty valid.

Gay money in == no rabidly anti-gay Republicans running the country. Unfortunately, on a federal level and at this point in history, that's the best we can hope for.

Supporters of marriage equality, of which
i am one, ned to explain why:

(a) they prefer Democratic candidates to come out say they support it in their heart, knowing this is virtually certain to cause them to lose the election (not because of Karl Rove -- but because that's whre too many voers are at) or
(b) they think it is okay for these candidates to shut up about it so hey get elected and we have 4 or 8 more years of progress and social change on this issue.

Plus the hate crimes bill plus, maybe, repeal of don't ask don't tell.

@ 4

While it sounds bad, you're essentially right.

Dan's (understandable) political litmus test on gay marriage bugs me for several reasons. First off, it's stupid. Second, its bad politics. Gay marriage is no big deal in the NE and the West Coast, but it's radioactive in Arkansas. When a candidate says he's personally opposed to gay marriage, I know he's really saying "I'll never put forth a constitutional amendment."

Candidates do this all the time with abortion. They say things like "I'm libertarian on abortion." What that really means is "I'm pro-choice, but since this is Texas, I can't just come right out and say it."

@2: Right on Will!

I have to say, Edwards had the right answer when it comes to the gay marriage questions: it's up to us to create a movement, and the politics will follow. Historically, that's always been the case. The abolitionist movement was an unpopular, grass roots movement that came out of Quaker churches (themselves hated for heresies against the Church of England), and the movement was popularized through our familiar movement techniques. The Civil Rights Movement that culminated in the Civil Rights Act was also a grass roots movement that eventually required courageous politicians, but getting to that point was the culmination of more than a decade of work a lot harder than our community is doing.

So, instead of bitching at presidential candidates about a stance that's politically unpalatable as well as unachievable, we might as well ignore the marriage issue on a Federal level until we've got it licked on multiple state levels (say, enough states that added up, they alone could deliver a victory in the electoral college).

It's not like there aren't enough winnable issues on the Federal level as it is. We can win on ENDA and DADT. We can swing hate crimes legislation. Immigration rights for same sex partners are just barely out of reach, but well worth lobbying for. And these are truly federal issues.

Obama actually was avocating for civil unions. I could hardly believe what I was hearing. For a black man to support the concept of seperate but equal is beyond all reason. AND NOW FOR REALITY.....what choice do we have? vote for one of the nut bucket republicans who do not believe in evolution? Vote for Romney who wears funny underwaer or "america's mayor" and hear 9/11 whenever he is in trouble for the next four years? The vast majority of gay people ( I allow for the self hating log cabin republicans) are going to vote for the democrat no matter who it is. We are left holding a bag of dog shit but at least the democrat won't light it on fire, throw it at us and then say it's our fault like the republican (whoever it is) will.
Oh and Will@2....the war is wrong, the war sucks but there are other wrongs that need to be righted. Get over yourself. Everyone knows you hate Dan for supporting the war. Move on.

Given a choice, only 23% of Americans support gay marriage, 34% support civil union, and 41% support no recognition of any kind (2/24-28/05 CBS poll).

Successful presidential candidates don't promote things that only 25% of the population support. It sucks, but it's the truth.

We need to convince our fellow Americans that gay marriage is the inevitable outcome of a sane and compassionate country, not ditch our political candidates for being unwilling to sacrifice themselves on the alter of an (unfortunately) deeply unpopular position.

Uh... my litmus test on gay marriage? I wasn't aware that I had one. If I did, I would be supporting Kucinich, which I'm not definitely not. I'm for Gore/Obama, and failing that ticket, I could support Obama... or anyone that's a Dem.

I wrote Kerry a check in '04 even though he was a complete dickfuck weasel on gay marriage -- he was against a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, kinda, but for a state ban on gay marriage in Mass. And I supported him. So much for my litmus test.

Correct me, but hasn't Mr. Sullivan been outed via the net as a bare backing slut?

Of course he now seeks the veneer of shouting that marriage solves all.

I think in America it is purely generational, twenty years from now, not sooner, those rights will be voted by a new generation.

Patience, dears.

Which is, if you followed the link, Lee Wong, exactly what Andrew said:

I think the gay movement should concentrate on supporting and building on marriage rights in the states, shrewdly backing and financing inclusive candidates, Republican and Democratic, and further engaging the under-30s, who will give us equality when they have their moment in the sun. Some no-brainer reforms - removing HIV as a bar to entering the US, for example - could also be pushed. Along with wartime suspension of DADT (they won't abolish it in a first term - political post-traumatic stress disorder will strike again).

Great minds, and like that.

Also, he was outed as an HIV-positive person who, like many HIV-positive people, advertised his willingness to engage in unprotected anal sex with other HIV-positive people. Does that make him a slut? I suppose. But since when does being a slut--for a while, for a lifetime--disqualify one from marriage?

And he's been pushing marriage for two decades, not just since he was outed about that personal ad.

And he's a great guy, and so is the man he's about to marry--spent a week with 'em this summer. Brought the family. Andrew and his intended live part of the year in Mass., where they can be legally married.

In the eyes of our (supposedly) secular government, what is the difference between marriage and a civil union? I include heterosexual couples in that question.

Next, the Dems don't need to openly support gay marriage, because they know that "lesser of two evil" voters like Dan Savage will elect them anyway (somehow, I think this is all Nader's fault).

The lesser of two evils... is less evil.

#16

Congrats Dan - the best phrase you have turned in a long time.

And polar opposite the nefarious Ralph Nader who was paid to run as a Greenie by the R's ... get that story Dan. Talk to the insider Greens of the era who wanted a celebrity candidate, deliberate strategy, and how much cash on table enticed Nader, and whose cash ...

Ralph is just another very cynical political whore in his old age. Too few millions in his bank accounts for his "estate". Who can say - maybe some senility plus greed.

I think they should take Dan's advice and vote for the Radical Red Bushies instead.

Then they can fundraise all they want - from Canada.

Look, get a grip, it's most likely to happen at the state level, or from some disgusted Canadians angry when their NAFTA and Free Trade guaranteed rights as a married couple are violated by a US state or federal office.

But whining won't get it. And backing candidates who have no hope in hades of winning won't either.

oh, and Will of HA, I seem to recall I predate you on SLOG, so kindly use a different name, not Will. I hate it when my friends ask me why I posted what you said.

i've been waiting for someone to say that quite that perfectly since i saw the debates. it's disheartening is what it is.

First, I agree with those commenters who generally point out that anything is better than the current crop of Republicans. Sure, I wish that the leading Dems woudl stand up and say they believe in gay marriage. I'd also like a unicorn. It's made even worse by being originally from Canada, where we did have leading politicans stand up for marriage equality. Sure, the Dems use the homos as a cash-machine: we're reliable, we're loyal, we are engaged (see the recent study that gay participation in elections is some three times the national average).

But what is rich is Andrew Sullivan's whining now. Dan points out that he's been advocating for gay marriage for twenty years. Great. What he gives with the one hand he was taking away with the other: to Andrew, other Republican values were more important than the marriage question (or the gay rights question, generally.) To Andrew, returning to some wonderful Reaganite period of true conservativism was the goal. Gay rights were to the side. He might complain that he was hoodwinked, but please, only the most blind (or those with their heads in the sand) can claim that the pre-2000 Republicans were better or as good as Democrats (I was in Canada and even I knew this.)

And he does it now, too: Though he tepidly praises Obama, he never passes up a chance to excoriate Clinton or any other Democrat. So while he goes on about how we need gay rights, he does everything he possibly can to undermine Democrats (his on-the-road-to-Damascus/Provincetown conversion away from Bush notwithstanding. Hindsight sure is a bitch.)

Right, right, right - above, number 21

Dan, what's your point? The implication of your is that pro-gay Democrats should throw away votes with loud and purely symbolic slogans supporting gay marriage.

It doesn't surprise me that Andrew would push for that, as it keeps his precious Republicans in power.

Good god, read Sullivan's blog. He wants to see the GOP completely routed, turned out of power, much like the Tories in the UK, until they come to their senses. He's not going to turn into Kos; he's still a conservative. But he's hardly angling to keep the GOP in power.

I disagree that "the people" should make a movement and then politics will follow. You can wait a very long time before Texas or Arkansas get their collective arse in gear. Sometimes politics have to move first, because discrimination just isn't on.
Since gay marriage has been legalised in several European states, support for it has gone up in the polls.

Yeah, I know I'm being utopic. And I get the thought that "hey, let's not press Democrats on gay issues, because we'll have equal rights sooner with a Democrat in the White House than a Republican". Sure. But it makes me so incredibly angry that to just say "sure, gay people are equal to straight people" would be a political death warrant.

@16 - Yep, less evil. But, the best thing you can hope for with a Democrat in office is they won't try to stick a "Sanctity of Marriage" Amendment, or some such nonsense, in the Constitution. And, so it goes. The Dems biggest accomplishment in progressive issues for the past 40 years is rolling things backwards more slowly than the Republicans.

Does anyone honestly think any of the viable Democratic candidates will do anything serious about health care, civil rights, or Iraq? Campaign season is as progressive as any of these bozos get. John Edwards, the progressive candidate. Please!

I agree with other posters that any advances in gay marriage will likely start at the state level. On a related "less evil" topic, I think we're stuck in Iraq for another 5-10 years regardless of who wins the election.

@24
I really couldn't give a shit about Andrew Sullivan's blog. My question is, what is the point of this post? Dan quotes a paragraph criticizing democrats for being pragmatic about the election, and he entitles it "What He Said". Well, what he said is just another two-bit criticism from a two-bit contrarian.

Anyway, thanks to Dan's comment about how he and Andrew vacation together, I think I understand the point of this post now.

I support gay marriage, but it's maybe in the lower 5% of what I consider politically important right now. The left could stand to consider what the most pressing topics (health care, the war, the environment) are and cease their identity politics squabbling for a moment. Instead of worrying about why centrist politicians are courting gays, maybe we should worry about the issues that will have the gravest consequences for the country as a whole, and once we've addressed these issues, then start considering extending marriage to gays.

Anytime people make the gay issue the most fundamental I think back on a time when a young woman told me that we shouldn't want Mexican-Americans to vote because they're socially conservative and would push the country further against gays. And my response was that "so fucking what?" You don't disenfranchise one minority. in order to empower a smaller one. Obviously this doesn't directly touch on the topic, but I can say that I think the environment and health care have much greater impact on a much larger segment of the population and are far more worthy of discussion than gays pretending to be breeders. That can wait. Tie your wagon to gay rights exclusively and you will never have anyone in office who will support gay rights period.

Opinionated douchebags like Sullivan are exactly what the gay community doesn't need. His ultimate loyalty is to small government and the almighty dollar, and he will readily support a fiscal conservative who will placate the bigoted segments of the right to win. What the center left, if one stills exists, needs is to address the deeper problems and anxieties this country faces: global warming, growing inequality (which contributes to anti-gay, anti-immigrant sentiment), the lack of health care, etc. These they could win on. And once these more pressing concerns are addressed, then liberals and "progressives" can address the gay marriage question, which to most Americans is of very little importance.

And why shouldn't the gays court the democrats? At least with them they'd have an ear. What the fuck are the Republicans offering? That house slave Sullivan well knows that a gay conservative like himself would never be considered worthwhile to the right- he's just a useful tool ("oh look, we have a gay guy on the right!"). Even if Giuliani won the white house, do you seriously think he'd risk alienating the substantial "morals" section of the party to push a pro-gay agenda? And no bankable Republican is going to seriously challenge the war, tackle global warming, address the health care issue substantively, and will certainly not consider the growing income gap.

So once again, fuck Sullivan. He's either cynical, or a principled retard.

The president doesn't need to do anything to support gay marriage. Unequal treatment is already unconstitutional. All the president has to do is not sign the defense of marriage act.

Having said that, how hard is it to get up on stage and say "separate is not equal?"

Could you please just change the name of this blog to Via Sullivan already?

29: Well exactly. You're more likely to have a Democract veto the bills like that than a Republican regardless of whether or not they'll admit it on the campaign trail. This is why the game of politics has to be separated from probable policy. I'm a socialist and have not love for liberalism, but you know what, I understand cut and dry pragmatism. I understand why he democrats don't get on stage and say that (because they're cynical and playing a game). But I also know they can rally strong support across the board for the issues I mentioned, and I know they'll be less likely to sign anti-gay legislation out of law and more likely to sign in pro-gay legislation than any Republican, no matter how Sullivantastic the Republican happens to be.

Leaders ought to lead.

The appropriate response to questions about same-sex marriage is to lead. Not to say, "many Americans are still opposed to it." Leader, not pollster.

Jamie, earlier, had it right: "separate is not equal."

All Americans deserve equal rights. And that includes marriage.

Sorry, boo boo, that last part should read:

... and I know they'll be less likely to sign anti-gay legislation INTO law and more likely to sign in pro-gay legislation than any Republican, no matter how Sullivantastic the Republican happens to be.

34: I agree 100%. But Sullivan's point is still ultimately bullshit because most Americans' concerns lie elsewhere. Though you had better believe that the democrats will fuck those issues up too.

How's this for a cold but true statement... we just need to wait for the older baby boomers, the ones who grew up in the 50s, to die off.

Younger generations don't care whether we get married or not. It's the old fucks stuck in their old ways that think that they are the last word on everything. And the ONLY reason they don't like the idea of gay marriage is because it grosses them out.

When DADT is gone (which won't be long now), it's going to be hard to hold back federally-recognized same-sex marriage. Troops with same-sex partners will have to be accomodated - or deal with a cluster fuck of lawsuits. DOMA will literally be a casualty of war.

28--you're exactly right. Sullivan only gives a shit about gay marriage right now because he hates the Republicans--as they are now. But he never gave a rat's ass in the past, and all it will take is some Republican wanker promising to cut taxes, shrink government, and give everyone a pony and he'll be back on his knees blowing him and singing Republican fight songs. As soon as the promised Second Coming of Reagan happens Sullivan's interest in gay marriage, and gay rights, will fall by the wayside.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I want marriage equality for me and for all other gay people. Anything less is "separate but equal."

BUT when a candidate like Obama or Edwards promises to push, strongly, for all the same rights in civil unions, I don't think "these people are evil and awful and I won't vote for them, so THERE." I think that I'd rather have all the same rights as my fellow citizens under a different name than NOT have those rights.

C'mon, the whole gay rights movement is less than 40 years old! We can't act like babies and say "we want it all, this minute, or we're against the candidates who will give us all the same rights but call it something different."

We get civil unions first, we wait a few years, the bible-thumpers are shown to be utter liars because the world doesn't end and straight marriages aren't "threatened," the oldest generation of homophobes die off, and then we get it called MARRIAGE.