One of the problems with identity politics is that what is good for the group doesn't necessarily benefit the individuals in the group.
While gays enjoy public acceptance as never before, individuals are still miserable because the relationships they have forged are not natural....and somewhere very deep inside, they know it.
"Identity politics" whoever's identity is being given political expression , is primarly about the political operatives who take it up as a cause, NOT about the overall happiness or fulfillment of the rank-and-file.
In the same way that the courts are largely about the lawyers and judges, and not YOU, and the "educational system" is about the teachers and organizational apparatus, and NOT the students.
One reason for this relentless push for gay marriage, same-sex families, etc. is because underlying all of these relationships is this very unhappiness, this felt "unnaturalness" that is described in this piece. It is as though by reaching for the brass ring of "tradition" through official certification and ceremony, everything will be made right. Well, once it's accomplished, if it ever is, there is no telling just what the statistics, over time, might turn out to be: perhaps the 40%-50% divorce rate that currently plagues heterosexual marriages?
On top of that, gays turn out to be their own worst enemies: those that just want to be left alone and live in peace, are ruthlessly OUTED by other gays only because they not been willing to "reveal themselves": they then get turned into fodder for the Gay Agenda. Mark Foley , creepy as he was , was targeted to be outed because he voted against important items of the gay agenda , and that was (probably wrongly) deemed to be "hypocritical". I must ask, isn't it possible that gay politicians could IN FACT be AGAINST gay marriage, for many different reasons, and on many different levels? WHY or HOW could that then be judged "hypocritical?"It is a sad state of affairs.