Think it over.
My opinion is "no".
History will haunt them.
And if not history, perhaps even grass roots politics. Suggesting that gays line-up in a list of issues, somewhere rank-ordered with "poverty" (a coalition "issue"?) isn't going to "work".
Separately, Andrew Sullivan writes:
"we are called to be healers and bridge builders"
Perhaps, some of us are called to show our righteous anger. And the more "strategists" say, "oh, just 'shhhush' and get along", the more visceral it becomes.
What's more, with everyday that goes by, the ability to excuse ignorance seems (to me) less and less. This is 2008, not 1978. We don't need to hear or suffer hearing the same things from "the opposition". We have a fairly well-founded right to expect a higher level of understanding and dialog.
Meanwhile, nearby, there is this disheartening post title (despite its excellent content):
"Understanding The Politics: Why Rick Warren Matters To Gays"
better:
"Understanding The Politics: Why Rick Warren Matters"
Do you see why? Poorly handled, can't inclusionism feel very much like marginalization, like 'being handled', like ... isolation, all over again?
And it is not just California. The U.S. is making an appalling display of itself at the U.N., failing to call for the decriminalization of gays and lesbians worldwide. Are gays suppose to stand in a line of "issues" with "oil interests", this time? Maybe, but don't bet on it, exclusively. Truth is, gays are supposed to fall in line behind "fighting terrorism" (just check-in with Dinesh, if your jaw just hit the floor because you can't believe that's true, for some ...).
