Reply #19: you've struck on something but I'm curious

[sui generis]

Short of proposing an absurd counter amendment, how do our politicians plan on talking about this?

All of these democratic time-worn stances disturb me:

1. We don't need the FMA - marriage is already protected at the state level
2. Amending the constitution is wrong on principle
3. We have more important things to address

...because none of them address the issue in any memorable way and just create a habit of downplaying the issue for those of us it affects. Why is it so difficult for our representatives to assume the clarity of the Feingold-ian or Hackett stances on this issue, to lead rather than deflect?

If we want to be able to put this issue down when it comes up again, as it will, we're going to have to prove that we're bulletproof on principle and make them look like the petty meddling bigots that they are, and to lead by stating we are the party of "values" and real values don't include bigotry. It ain't cool to be a bigot.

After all, they're not hesitating to judge us as immoral just for drawing breath.

I'm just concerned that we'll end up with another calculus of inoffensive ineffective mush mouth rhetoric that just leaves our flank exposed yet again.

I might even say "America may not be ready on the whole to recognize the families of gays and lesbians, families that already exist and for whom some states are making life as difficult as possible. But why should America adopt the pettiness and harmfulness of those state constitutions? Those families aren't going away. Gay people and their families and the people who care about them aren't going away. All we've done in those states is made life really hard for gay families. Is that what free America is proud of? Is that how we want to constitutionally describe America, as petty and small and mean minded?"

That's what I want to hear.