Now my gay friend at this discussion forum, Danny, who is not a gay disinformationalist and is ordinarily an astute political analyst, disagrees with me (and apparently, with Barney Frank) when I say that the historic opportunity has been lost indefinitely.
But that is what I predicted before the first failed closure vote on DADT Repeal, and I see no reason to change that. We'll all be looking at what happens to DOMA, of course.
But none of that would have mattered if a comprehensive, properly written bill covering same-sex domestic partnerships had been presented to Congress in 2009.
I prefer to call such a partnership a civil union. After all, both of my straight marriages have been just that! (My 1970s gay marriage was necessarily unofficial...)
I don't want to get married again. My long-time man and I strongly agree that we will only have an official partnership if it is the law of the land, and pragmatically speaking, the way to write a comprehensive federal civil-rights legislation is to not call it marriage.
But cutting back to the unpleasant political present, we have the problem of the Republican Party making serious efforts to hijack the gay Democratic vote. Shills like one inhabitant of our discussion board pseudo-named "Trent," a supposed gay in Washington DC, a Republican disinformationalist posing as a gay activist (or else he is really so conflicted he actually believes what he is saying). Trent bashes Democrats, especially Obama and Eric Holder, and supports now-declared Republican candidate for President Fred Karger, and others are working to both depress the Democratic turnout and get gays disgusted enough with the not-do-enough Democrats to cut their uh-huhs off to spite their faces and vote Republican in 2012.
Those who act in haste are condemned to repent at leisure, my mother told me long ago.
I will repeat this encomium of political pragmatism until I pass, and I hope my old mentor Dr. Howard Zinn is listening: it doesn't matter what you call a comprehensive bill of civil rights. What matters is that you get the rights, not that you get to call it what you want to.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).