I really was disappointed--as a straight man--to see this go down in Maine. It's just so sad. It's not equality until it's equal.

I really do dream of the day when my queer friends are able to wed, especially those I know have been in committed relationships for decades. When this Gaytopia finally emerges (hopefully in Oregon sooner rather than later), I'll drink pink martinis all night.

I think that there should be a movement to have married or would-be-married-if-their-state-allowed-it couples file their state and federal taxes as married couples. It would, no doubt, require some tax-attorneys willing to defend them and it would also require a lot of people participating to create a notable stink.

It would be particularly interesting in the case of affluent couples who are subject to the marriage penalty when filing jointly, as it would place the state and federal governments in the position of saying that, in a time of deficits and other economic woes, denying the right to marry to two people of the same sex is more important than bringing in adequate revenue to run our government.

The sad thing is that this has nothing to do with civil rights law or tax revenue or anything productive like that. As certain columnists have pointed out in the past, this is just the product of hypocritical religious zealotry.


God help the government if it tries to limit their access to fully automatic firearms ("This is America! Hands off my guns!") or inoculate their children ("This is America! Hands off my parental responsibility!"). But if two dudes want settle down and raise some kids, well, it's the government's job to see that doesn't happen.

You're right, it doesn't have to do with taxes, at least not at the center of the issue, but taxes could be an option for forcing the issue.

You probably aren't going to convince the rah rah crazy "protect the children!" folks. They are bigots (mostly) and disagree with us on such a deep level that nothing reasonable or unreasonable we can say or do will move them. The point is to make supporting the bigots' position so unpalatable to reasonable folks who don't out and out support gay marriage. If they find supporting the bigot's view, or even tolerating it, unpleasant, then they'll either side with us, or fail to come to the polls to vote for marriage bans.

This allows legislatures (the groups that have usually led on civil rights issues, often going against a majority of the public) to enact laws permitting gay marriage. In order for legislatures to do this, the individual politicians who make up those bodies, need to not fear retribution from voters. The majority can grumble, and politicians will probably be okay, as long as the bigots are kept far enough on the fringes that they cannot sway folks in the middle.

I'm by no means an expert on how to win this, but it seems that we're most likely to win if we force the issue on as many fronts as possible, rather than making it an issue of convincing individuals to "like" gay marriage. On serious social issues, individuals tend to be kind of sucky, but the body politic can often be inured to their objections and convinced to, if not support change, at least accept it quietly.