Andrew Sullivan writes:
But if you believe, as I do, that the case is extremely strong, then airing it in a controlled and rational court room in which all the arguments can be thrashed out in public is inherently good. Anything that can expose more people to the core arguments of this issue is, in my judgment, good for the cause.
Okay, a state supreme court, yes. Jumping to Federal court "too soon", no. Generally, you enter into discussions that will end discussions when either, (a), you are assured of a win, or, (b), you are prepared to live indefinitely with a loss.
If the gay movement were somehow able to marshal the right resources to move the electorate on the issue of gay marriage from, say, -5, in a city like Cincinnati, to +5 or better, then the rest of the 'political process' would start to fall in line, yes?
No 'indefinite loss' because of generation change? Read John Dean. There are potential mid-term consequences. And why fight at all, if one simply believes in a fall back of 'generational change', the kind of progress that potentially careens from one unexamined set of beliefs to the next?If the gay movement were somehow able to marshal the right resources to move the electorate on the issue of gay marriage from, say, -5, in a city like Cincinnati, to +5 or better, then the rest of the 'political process' would start to fall in line, yes? Perhaps even the judicial process!
So far as I can tell, "we" don't know if that can be done. We don't even have the results of the post-Maine focus groups, widely disseminated, if any were ever done.
