Benjamin Wittes writes in The Atlantic Monthly about the current pink battle waging in the states about gay marriage. Subscriber-only link. I disagree with Wittes' views that color his "facts" a little, but overall, he does a nice job of painting the landscape. His bottom-line opinion: gay activists should stay away from judicial victories because it just provokes the ire of the rest of the population. They should continue to work on influencing the culture and pushing for legislation because such efforts are longer-lasting and more satisfying than a Roe-like victory.
I enjoyed his opinion about the "civil rights" nature of homosexual marriage:
For those who support same-sex marriage–and I support it without reservation–the ideal of equality and the belief in the dignity of same-sex relationships necessarily makes the issue seem a great deal like the civil-rights struggles of the past. But the civil-rights movement was asking America to honor a set of principles it had already adopted into law–indeed, into the Constitution itself–a century earlier, after a bloody civil war fought precisely over the status of African-Americans. By contrast, America has never legally embraced the right of gays and lesbians to marry. So no matter how compelling, or seductive, the language of civil rights may be, gay-marriage advocates must remember that they are not asking for the recognition of an existing right, but the creation of a new one–which will require, for many people, a significant rethinking of a deeply established social institution.
