The author poses the question, "Why not continue with the state-by-state process of debate, experimentation, and slow but increasing movement toward marriage equality?"

The answer is obvious and clear: because individual people are being hurt by the marriage ban and are entitled to redress now. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin were among the first of the couples to be married in California. They'd been partners for decades and were leaders in the gay rights movement. Del passed away shortly after their marriage. She would have died single, with her rights denied, had the CA Supreme Court not ruled as it had when it had. Even the delay of a few months would have robbed her of her right to die married to the women she loved for so many years.

All across this nation, in every state, people are dying unable to marry their partners. This harm is ongoing and deeply painful. I was unable to marry my own partner before he past away years ago. I can assure you there is a BIG difference in how the world views the loss of a partner and a husband.

Yes, the suit may not win right now, but that isn't any reason to delay. Should Dred Scott have held off on his lawsuit? He didn't win, but the loss further upset the Northerners and Republicans, showed the toothlessness of the Missouri Compromise, and was an important factor in Lincoln's eventual election. Lawrence overturned an earlier Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick. Bowers was so bad in its application, Justice O'Connor changed her vote from a yes in Bowers to overturning it (and came very close to suggesting the very equal protection argument suggested in the marriage case). Losing cases often set the stage for latter victories.

As Gandhi wrote, "Some battles must be fought, not because they can be won, but because they must be fought."

Many gay leaders and organizations didn't want the marriage fight when it started in Hawaii, but the issues has proved to be a pivotal one, moving gay rights from an emphasis on sex to an emphasis on partnerships and equality. While the marriage equality movement has not won every fight, it has won more than enough. Moreover, cases headed to the US Supreme Court take years to get there. An aneurism here, a car crash there, an epileptic seizure or two, and we may have a very different Court by the time the cases reaches it.

The time for justice is always now. The possibility of failure isn't any reason not to try.

I am in favor of legalizing gay marriage (technically, I am in favor of marriage ceasing to exist as a legal institution, but that is another story).

The gay rights movement is going to make incredible strides forward in the next generation. Homophobes are disporportionately old and tollerant people are dispoportionately young.

I think that it is very rarely a good idea to go through the courts. To remove an issue from the democratic process strengthens the backlash against it. Winning through the courst has the very real risk of givig away long-term strength for short term strength. Now, that may be a desirable trade if there are few prospects for long term strength, but I don't think that is where the gay rights movement is.

A battle worth fighting is worth fighting well, which means it's worth fighting to win. Fighting to win means picking your battles carefully and fighting as much as possible from a position of strength. The injustices that homosexuals have and do suffer demand justice, but the goal is not to fight but to win. I don't think that making that fight at this moment does anything but strengthen the opposition.

Foobs:

I am in favor of legalizing gay marriage (technically, I am in favor of marriage ceasing to exist as a legal institution, but that is another story).

The gay rights movement is going to make incredible strides forward in the next generation. Homophobes are disporportionately old and tollerant people are dispoportionately young.

I think that it is very rarely a good idea to go through the courts. To remove an issue from the democratic process strengthens the backlash against it. Winning through the courst has the very real risk of givig away long-term strength for short term strength. Now, that may be a desirable trade if there are few prospects for long term strength, but I don't think that is where the gay rights movement is.

A battle worth fighting is worth fighting well, which means it's worth fighting to win. Fighting to win means picking your battles carefully and fighting as much as possible from a position of strength. The injustices that homosexuals have and do suffer demand justice, but the goal is not to fight but to win. I don't think that making that fight at this moment does anything but strengthen the opposition.

We have all seen what the "democratic process" has garnered for equal rights for gays & lesbians. State after state used the tyranny of the majority to suppress equal rights through amendments to their constitutions, with Arizona and California doing so in 2008. Arkansas went so far as to use the ballot box to ban gays and lesbians from adopting children. Tell me how the "democratic process" has worked for us?

As many blacks will tell you, it wasn't the "democratic process" that won them so many civil rights victories, it was the court room, where justice often prevailed. Its not the best system, but then again, our Founding Fathers were pretty damn smart to create the court system as the last stumbling block for "tyranny of the majority".

The gay rights movement is going to make incredible strides forward in the next generation. Homophobes are disporportionately old and tollerant people are dispoportionately young.

This may be true, but being tolerant doesn't necessarily translate into being politically activist.

What good will it do to live in a world of mainstream tolerance if the actual laws on the books have already hamstrung our full legal expression of that very tolerance. A largely homophobic generation will indeed die out, but the laws they've enacted will remain unless the new generation commits to undoing them.

The funny thing about young people is that they are passionate about all kinds of worldly things, and then they get older.

You get older, you get more selfish, your mind changes and you begin to focus on your own immediate needs... Being that most people are heterosexual... the impetus to prioritize what a few gay people are going through when you're so busy getting married and raising your own families and paying your own taxes etc...... well that impetus will fade, tolerance or no.

We're putting a whole lot of faith in the tolerant younger generation to clean this crap up tomorrow... But the intolerant are lobbying against my loved ones today. I'm not sure I'm willing to wait and let's see. Stakes are high.

Cramming same-sex marriage down the country's throat by judicial fiat has the potential to backfire horribly. Although a decent number of anti-same-sex marriage activists are pushing for a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage, there isn't much momentum for such an effort. Whatever your stand on the position, recent elections show that the populations of most states are opposed to gay marriage; if a federal court were to declare, for the country, that same sex marriage had to be legalized, support for such an amendment would get a big boost. Getting such an amendment overturned could take decades longer than what is an almost certain, albeit gradual, success at liberalizing marriage laws on a state by state basis.

That said, the following, from Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, is worth considering:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

The possibility of failure isn't any reason not to try.

But a failure that makes future victory more difficult is.

Although a decent number of anti-same-sex marriage activists are pushing for a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage, there isn't much momentum for such an effort.

What makes you say this, tho? Nobody even saw Prop 8 coming. Most people thought, oh what a silly thing, it will fail on its own don't pay their little smear campaigns any mind. And then it passed. And then it was upheld.

I think anti-same sex marriage activists are counting on us to think there isn't much momentum for their cause. Obviously they know something we don't.

There's a lot of conflict in people's minds about gay marriage. On the one hand, a shrinking majority are against it [~55%]. Yet at the same time a significant majority are against the idea of codifying marriage as heterosexual in a Constitutional Amendment.

The most interesting statistic to me is that a good number of people are accepting of the idea of gay civil unions that THEY CONSIDER to grant all of the benefits of marriage. For many people, they just have a hard time changing their internal construct of marriage to include gay marriage.

Yes, people may become less activist as they grow older. But that doesn't mean they'll be changing their minds on the issue. We don't need everyone to be an activist, we just need them to not stand in the way.

So, I am supposed to accept that I am a second class citizen in a nation that isn't supposed to have second class citizens all because there might be a backlash?

Two very simple words: FUCK & YOU!

As I have stated before, I am tired of being the good little faggot waiting for the majority to "vote" me my rights that the Constitution already guarantees, but that the majority doesn't see fit to allow me to exercise? Again, FUCK & YOU!

Yeah, that's a strategy that's sure to lead to success...

It is good to fight for what you believe in but that does not mean that you need to be foolish about it. You want to have the same rights as others not be a figurative martyr. I think the gay marriage advocates should focus on the civil union issues and avoid the word marriage for now. If civil unions offer the same exact thing as marriage except with a different name, then the actual harm is lessened, although not completely rectified. Then, once you have civil unions in a large number of places, fight for the civil unions to be marriage. Once more people see that gay people being "married" in practice, just like heterosexuals are, you may find more people willing to accept gay marriage rather than fight over semantics.

If civil unions offer the same exact thing as marriage except with a different name, then the actual harm is lessened, although not completely rectified.

How many times must this be explained? This is precisely my source of frustration with casual supporters of gay rights. Civil unions do NOT offer the same exact thing as marriage with a different name. They do not confer any standard sets of rights across the states, and in no state do civil union offer any of the federal protections that opposite sex marriages automatically offer. Currently only marriage equals marriage.

Again, we can spend years building a separate but equal institution that mimics civil marriage... or we can go to the crux of the issue: that gender should be irrelevant to whether or not any civil marriage is legally valid.

There is no way to avoid the fact that this is a federal issue, when federal protections are exactly what is being withheld.

I understand that civil unions do not do that. However, I also see a population that is more likely to support something called civil unions even if it confers the same benefits as marriage, than if it is actually called marriage. That is why I began the sentence with "if" in regard to civil unions providing the same benefits. You are too concerned with this "separate but equal" nonsense. Separate but equal is constitutional, for all intents and purposes, if the Supreme Court says it is. Right now you have 4 hardcore conservatives who will not buy any argument that you put forth and one who likely will not do so. So, you can bang your head against the wall with this "marriage" stuff hoping to sway opinions and knowing the the Supreme Court as constituted will not find a federal right and that there is a decent chance that none of Obama's picks will go for it (I know that Obama does not support gay marriage and he is a constitutional scholar. Maybe he will pick someone who will support gay marriage. I don't know if Sotamayor does at this point.) Or you can build through civil unions knowing that the ultimate goal is marriage for all. You are more likely to have people on board who are squeamish about the calling it marriage. If the courts seem receptive at any point in the future, you can get back into court and probably to the Supreme Court in 5 years.

Finally, it may be a federal issue, but there is more support against it than for it. Hell, Bush won in 2004 in all likelihood due to gay marriage. Ohio was a key battleground state and the people cared more about keeping gay people from marrying than high unemployment. There are alot of "liberals" who are against gay marriage. Hey, I say go forward with whatever stategy that they want, but they may be doing more harm to the cause than good.

You are too concerned with this "separate but equal" nonsense. Separate but equal is constitutional, for all intents and purposes, if the Supreme Court says it is.

You're confusing me with someone else you responded to, I think. I don't disagree with you here. Separate but equal probably could be constitutional if we decided it was . My point isn't that separate but equal is wrong. My point is that those who oppose same sex marriage are building their own federal case, whether we are ready to go to federal court or not.. My point is that we supporters need to get cracking on the federal issues at stake before we are beaten to the punch.

Whatever strategy we end up choosing... the facts can and must speak for themselves. FACT Civil unions and domestic partnerships are NOT equal to marriage, and yet they are the only options available for same sex couples who wish to see their families protected by law. FACT there are many states in which even these lesser protections are unavailable to same sex citizens. FACT opponents to same sex marriage are determined and highly organized, working to set as many legal precedents in their favor as possible FACT these opponents have already had a substantial margin of success (especially considering the blatant weakness of their arguments).

From a strategical standpoint, gradually persuading the whole country that same sex marriage is A-OK ... that goal is at worst irrelevant, and at best a secondary concern. Personally, I give two sh*ts whether 55% or 5% of the population approves of same sex marriage. Public opinion should have 0% to do with my right to marry someone of the same sex if I so choose.

Our primary goal as same sex marriage activists needs to be convincing our lawmakers that the right to marriage, regardless of gender, is already a protected right under Our Constitution. And then building our case.

It's the difference between telling people they will be protected "someday" whenever we get used to the idea, or confirming that we are all already protected by Our Constitution in the here and now.

Now having said all that, I concede that there are no guarantees here and that courts have been ruling in unpredictable ways. You're right about the make up of the panel. If this were somehow forced into the Highest Court tomorrow, I shudder to think of what the outcome would be. Be that as it may, we're still headed to Court.. it's inevitable... so let's have part of our activist strategy be getting our legal arguments together for chrissakes!

I say full steam ahead. If we lose, then it will benefit us somewhat because it will give people a reason to be outraged. There was MASSIVE outrage in the face of Prop 8. And because protesters called Prop 8 supporters on their bigotry, it changed the political atmosphere. Now you cannot publicly support a ban on gay marriage without some sort of consequence: social ostracism, boycotts, protests, etc. This is no longer an issue on which we can politely "agree to disagree". The bigots must lose. Supporting inequality hurts people, and it's becoming clearer and clearer to the American public why and how that happens.

So when I hear people tell me to wait, I ask them: for what? Tell me how long you'd like me to be deprived of my rights. I'll mark it on my calendar. But here's a better idea: Let's keep this issue fresh and moving. Let's get media attention and get people to see marriage equality as a real issue that affects real people and not some silly, abstract question of legal principles. Even if we lose some battles, our side will grow. But if we wait, we accomplish nothing.