And why exactly was that included in the story?
Lincoln took a lot of criticism and ridicule before Gettysburg. Looks like the liberal gay groups are going to steamroll ahead and push the gay marriage issue ASAP. Strategically for them, that is probably the worst thing they could do. It one thing to end a law that will jail persons for consensual acts in the privacy of their home, quite another to redefine a cornerstone institution that will impact nearly every aspect of society. Like it or not, the majority of Americans were ready for and could live with the former. The same cannot be said about the latter. Civil unions, perhaps, but marriage/adoption/benefits/constant high visibility in every aspect/acceptance as a totally equal alternative lifestyle worthy of gov't encouragement, I doubt it.
The pundits are right, gay marriage is going to soon dominate the cultural/political debate. But these advocates are now jumping further ahead of the curve than they can influence it in their favor. Up to now the public has basically gone along and given in to demands, because it was viewed as not really impacting the average Joe, a sort of appeasement that was fair, a lessening of hardships. But gay marriage goes from relieving hardship to elevating and granting official approval. Polls continue to show that the majority of Americans are not ready for that. So the question becomes will it be forced on them, or will they that we have already reached an acceptable balance and going further is too far?
Nothing is certain, but my guess is this will be a turning point in the culture wars, precisely because to stop gay marriage will require significant action by the American people rather than passive acquiesence. It will be a deciding factor in the 2004 election, if not in the presidential race, than at the Congressional level. If social conservatives are smart, they will:
1) Completely drop all the harsh and counterproductive gay-bashing 'fags are taking our country straight to hell' vitriole. Do you want to influence those whose views are different than yours, or do you want to vent?
2) Focus instead on the specific impacts and ramifications of establishing gay marriage as a government and societally sanctioned and supported coequal option.
3) Note that this is no longer about denying individuals their choice of behavior(under threat of jail), but now liberals/gays trying to deny individuals/groups/society their choice of what they want to recognize and subsidize(under threat of jail via discrimination laws).
4) Explain that this country and a democratic republic is based on individuals and society making decisions on what to recognize and subsidize through the legislature and elections, not a handful of appointed for life scheming judges intent on imposing their will regardless of society's.
5) Highlight at every opportunity the use of the courts to bypass the will of the people, and on the issue of states rights.
6) Reintroduce the concept of local control and state's rights by asking,"Do we want Massachusetts defining how we live in Texas, do we want Mississippi defining how we live in California, by forcing something on us via a few judges, activist from either side who could be installed for life with almost no accountability from the public? they can't be voted out of office."
7) Emphasize how the Democrats are trying to block and change the process of judicial confirmations, so as to legislate through a few judges, who we cannot vote on. This may be the one issue that will simplify the dangers and effects of judicial activism in a way that the average Joe can finally recognize how it is taking place and what are its impacts. Regardless of my views on the particular issues of sodomy and gay marriage, I have a gut instinct that the fight over gay marriage will be the liberal's Gettysburg, with Santorum helping to lead a successful defense. A close, tough battle that may be hard to determine for awhile, but one that turns the tide. We'll see.