Dean,

What this poll tells me is that we're working from a more conservative base.

In our youth, we are at our most liberal - once upon a time, I was pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage and even thought that gun control made at least some sense. From there to here was 15-20 years of reality repeatedly knocking me about the head and shoulders. These kids polled today are just a bit smarter than I was when I was their age - and they'll go farther right, faster, than I ever did.

All of this is my means of bringing you around to your mistaken notion that gay marriage is eventually a given. These kids are in favor of it, now, because they've never been married and are all full of that exceptional libertarianism which is really the most consistent thing about young people. As time goes on, they'll more and more realise that gay marriage is a non-starter and their support for it will collapse and they'll be just like everyone else - ok with people being as gay as they wanna be, but not ok with anyone trying to sell the absurd notion that gay is the same as straight.

There. Did I do a really good job of ensuring that the debate over gay marriage will hijack this thread?

That, of course, was not my point: the main point to be made is that the kids of today are largely the much more conservative Americans of tomorrow - with, just perhaps, a more libertarian bent than today's conservatives, but rock-ribbed all the same.

Nah. The differences are too profound. Except for the growing trend against abortion, which has been creeping up for decades, and the growing support for privatization of SS, it's pretty clear to me that a broad social liberalism continues to pervade at all levels of society. 30 years ago, gay rights were nowhere even on the map, and getting arrested or institutionalized just for being gay was not all that uncommon. Now, even you, a self-professed "rock ribbed conservative" are far more socially liberal on this issue than any self-described conservative would have been in, say, 1973.

Put it another way: Imagine it's 1963, and you're still talking about how these young kids may think those anti-miscegenation laws are bad, but when they get older they'll know better!

Nah. The queers are here, and most of us are used to it now. Too many people have friends, family members, coworkers, etc. who are gay, and too much science now confirms that, at least so far as sexual attraction is concerned, it's not something people one day wake up and decide to become, or that you can "fix" with some sort of therapy.

That being the case, it's intrinsically obvious that these folks need some kind of legal assurances involving inheritance, child custody, hospital visitation, and so on, and whether it's marriage or some kind of similar alternative, I think it's a given that we're going to have it.

Just like I think it's a given that school choice and social security choice are going to be the norm within 20 years, so too I think some kind of recognized same-sex unions will also be with us. And I have no problem with it, because whether it's from a social justice perspective or from a simple matter of pragmatism, there's reason for society to find some way to formalize gay unions.

Dean I don't know how old you were in 1963 but almost all the kids who were my age didn't even know what anti-miscegenation meant. Probably most today don't even know.
We are going to see a backlash at some point at the members of the gay community that are not content with just having equal rights but want to shove their gayness in our faces and the faces of our children.
I think we will stop short of gay marriage but rights for people living together will become a no-brainer.

I confess I could never quite figure out what that "in your face" stuff was supposed to mean. Well I guess some of the guys at the parades are pretty obnoxious, although that's kind of the point....

Oh, and uh, 1963 was three years before I was born. ;-)

Dang, I didn't figure this would hijack this thread, since it's only one line out of lots and lots, but here it is.

"4) Gay marriage will be a reality sooner or later"
This one line jumped out at me, and I suspect to many others also.

Dean, when I was college age, "no-fault" divorce was the up & coming thing. It was spreading like wildfire, coming out of California.

I predict that 30-40 years from now, gay marriage will be seen as "divorce at whim" is now------a terrible idea that seemed good at the time.
And for the same reason---overthrowing a pervasive human institution (which is pretty much the same for all known societies for all of recorded history) for the sake of an ephemeral pleasure.

Okay. So. You've got a cousin who's gay. She's been with her lover for 20 years. Her lover goes into the hospital and they won't let her see her. Her lover dies, and she winds up evicted because the house wasn't in both their names. They have a 6 year old child together, but because the dead lover was the one to give birth, her lover's family try to seize custody. Also, the family tries to keep her away from the funeral, and don't have any respect whatsoever for her wishes on the funeral arrangementsl. Also, because they don't share credit, all those house payments and such that they made together don't redound to her record, and she winds up largely penniless. She also loses the money in her lover's 401(k) account, and some other parts of their savings.

Oh, and by the way, what about that child, who grows up learning that her parents' relationship has no respect at all from society--and being taught that monogamy and committment are fluid concepts to this society?

You see no point whatsoever in trying to grant these folks some sort of legally binding protection from that sort of thing? Where does your approval or disapproval of their life choices end, and basic fairness (not to mention valuing family stability even for unusual families) begin?

I'm not particularly sympathetic to ranting about "separate but equal" from the hardline gay marriage folks, but isn't there at minimum justification for some sort of legal recognition and protection for these relationships? Whether you approve of them or not, they're happening. No one says your church has to recognize these relationships, no one says you have to like them. But there's a basic issue of social fairness here, AND, an interest to society for encouraging responsible family behavior within them. Wouldn't you say?

Dean,

While I can see common-sensical laws to make setting up living trusts and such very easy, I don't see people saying that gay marriage is the way to take care of the rather small number of gay people who would find themselves in the position your putative couple is in.

Anyways, I guess we'll have to wait and see...I turn 39 in two weeks, how old are you? If we place a bet on how things will be in 2033, then we'll be happy, I'll bet, to pay up no matter how it comes out.

39? Cripes! You're an old bastard.

I'm 37, and have no idea how to relate to an old fogey like you. What, were you born in 1964 or something? Wasn't that before they invented color?

I have not one but TWO bets for you. No, make it three:

A) Bush will, for the entire rest of his term, hem and haw and, like Clinton, continue to claim that he believes that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But he'll also do what he's consistently done in the past, and said that those who are concerned with the speck in their brother's eye need to be more concerned with the plank in their own, and otherwise duck the gay marriage issue as best he can. He will not get behind the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (or whatever the hell it's called) in major way, and if pressed will say he thinks it's a states' rights issue.

Bet for you: One compact disc of winner's choice, valued at $20 or less.

B) If the social conservatives somehow manage to get said proposed amendment through both houses of Congress, it will not be ratified by the states, even if it gets through Congress.

Bet for you: One CD of the winner's choice if it gets through both houses of Congress (or not), and one CD if it's ratified by the states (or not).

C) By 2033, either marriage or some form of civil union for gay couples will be recognized in a majority of the 50 states.

Bet for you: two CDs or one DVD of the winner's choice.

You in?

The FMA won't get through because Constitutional Amendments require grand-scale and prolonged and wide-based support. ERA looked solid and it had all the "right" people behind it, and a lot of states for it, but then along came a Schaffly, and poof. FMA is a lot less powerful than the ERA was.

The FMA is a means for conservatives to vent, and a warning to the other side not to get too radical.

"overthrowing a pervasive human institution (which is pretty much the same for all known societies for all of recorded history) for the sake of an ephemeral pleasure"

Sorry, but no gay person is saving their virginity for marriage, and the entire point of marriage is that it is not ephemeral. The idea that gay marriage has anything at all to do with "ephemeral pleasure" is what puts opponents clearly on the wrong side of history.

I'd really like to speak to the "ephemeral pleasure" issue. As a gay man who has been involved in romantic relationships with other men since the age of 13 (I'm now 33, HIV-, and monogamously mated), I know from ephemeral pleasure. Sharing bills, arguing about who does the dishes more often, cooking and cleaning, folding socks (not to mention sorting out the dirty ones), planning for a financial future, negotiating holidays and whose families will be visited for which, nursing colds and hurt feelings, finding privacy within intimacy, and keeping it in your pants despite the unbelievable availability of men with loose morals out there -- none of these things are an "ephemeral pleasure". I think that Fred's soft-spined anonymity is only rivaled by his lack of information.

It's true: if you're a gay man, there's this enormous sexual underground where you can get laid pretty much wherever, whenever, and however you want. I think it's difficult for many straight (and narrow) people to really understand the effect that America's systemic disapproval, intolerance and persecution of gay men has had on our culture. There's a hedonist in everyone; but most mainstream hedonism is kept in check by societal standards, a subtle but firm wink-and-nod that says, "Yes, boys will be boys, but you'll need to settle down some day." The gay subculture knows no such restraint, precisely because it is invisible to most of mainstream society. And it is invisible because, historically, it had to be. Not forty years ago, gay men with the courage to frequent gay bars were rounded up by police, charged with "lewd and lascivious behavior" for merely being in the building, and their names were published in the papers. Lives and reputations were ruined. For many straight people, the idea of homosexuality and gay liberation are somewhat recent -- the popular media and the political machine really only picked up our cause in the late 80's, with significant acceleration in the 90's. However, for gay people who were brought up in the culture, the 1950's and 1960's are still very fresh in our minds. Our secrecy is a hard-learned lesson.

So when some Fred or whoever so casually dismisses the discipline, the values, the commitment, the love and the outright restraint required for a gay man to turn his back on loose men and fast living and actually settle down with a man he loves, when some whoever-or-other without a real email address calls my relationship and the basis of my home and family life an "ephemeral pleasure", well . . . I'm not into water sports, so please piss somewhere else. What nonsense.

As for Dean and Mark's bet: if we look at the Episcopal Church and the utter transmogrification that certain diocese are willing to undergo in order to maintain their belief that gay men and lesbians are "outside the fold", it makes me wonder whether there will be a similar sort of schism in America itself in the coming years. Already conservatives are talking about a "Cultural Declaration of Independence" and other methods of symbolically expressing the idea that "this America is not MY America or even THE America". I believe that passions regarding homosexuality run so high -- perhaps even higher than passions on race, as homosexuality is truly considered a "last line in the sand" for traditional values -- that we risk a complete cultural and societal schism on the subject. There are people for whom homosexuality is so vile and repugnant that they will revolt against their own government if they perceive that we have been elevated to the status of full citizens.

I would like to believe that the civil union issue will flare up and then die down as future generations come to accept that gay people need love and commitment and family just as desperately as straight people, and that it is not within the purview of government to decide whether a union of consenting adults is moral. However, as a student of history I understand the tenacity with which people will fight for their view of the world, even as that view is crumbling. I harbor guarded pessimism on the subject.

I have more faith in the American system, and Americans in general, than you do John.

Perhaps I'm just a Pollyana, but I think a fair view of history bears me out. As a people, we always get it right sooner or later. We really do. Just pick your issue: slavery, women's rights, universal suffrange, interracial marriage, whatever: the basic sense of egalitarianism is ingrained in us as Americans, and sooner or later we always come around.

Of course, "sooner or later" often means 30, 40, 60 or 70 years, so I'm not trying to say it's easy. But really: 80% of the world, even today, would put you in jail and horribly abuse you just for being who you are. That's horrifying, I know, and I'm not saying "shut up and be grateful." But I am saying, look how far we've come, and look how far ahead we are from most of the rest of the world. Have hope, my friend.

Guess it's the disgusting optimist in me, but I really do believe in America and its system. We always get it right sooner or later, we really do.

I agree with Dean Esmay; we do continue to try by trial and error we get it right. like nam and iraq for example? wait...no...bad example...sorry dean. so much for history then huh?

Dean,

In. But a bit of clarification:

Do you mean the rest of Bush's first term, or all the way to January 20th, 2009 if he's re-elected next year?

My view is that while President Bush will not get out in front on this issue, he will jump on it if (a) a State supreme court rules gay marriage to be a fundamental right and (b) if it looks like the US Supreme Court will go along with this. Its just too wonderful an issue - completely locks in religious conservatives while at the same time allowing him to make a play for States rights libertarians (after all, no one in Ohio wants the MA SC deciding the issue for them, right?). The whole issue of homosexuality as a thing can be shunted aside into a grand battle for judicial restraint and the right of the people to determine the ultimate laws of their land.

Ten years ago the FMA could not have worked - the major media still had entirely too much control over the debate back then. All they'd have to do is a few interviews with poor, downtrodden gays who want to marry and contrast that with some asshole bigot saying that gays are the Devil's work, and, bingo!, FMA DOA. Doesn't work that way anymore - no one really believes the major media anymore and the massive amounts of other media (you included) will ensure that the issue is presented and discussed fairly, even by people who disagree.

I'm looking forward to my CD's....