Originally published January 3, 2001, in the Chicago Free Press.
Many gays fear that with the accession of a Republican administration chances for passing hate-crimes and anti-discrimination laws are greatly decreased.
That would not be much of a loss. And instead of spinning our wheels trying to work for them fruitlessly, we would be wiser to begin working for policy changes that would have far more benefit for us: Specifically, gay marriage and military access. (And, of course, sodomy law repeal in states where sodomy laws are still in force.)
Hate crimes laws, after all, do not benefit most of us. Few gay men and even fewer lesbians are ever victims of hate crimes. Nor is there any reliable evidence that hate crimes laws, where they exist, have any deterrent effect on would-be perpetrators.
Nor do non-discrimination laws do much good. Few of us are ever likely to experience overt job discrimination. In our current tight labor market, discrimination against gays is melting faster than the Wicked Witch of the West.
Jurisdictions that have non-discrimination laws find that few claims of discrimination are brought to their attention. To the contrary, almost every week, more companies announce that they will offer domestic partner benefits to attract and retain gay employees.
So hate crimes laws have almost no real impact and non-discrimination laws are a solution to a rapidly disappearing problem.
Continuing advocacy of those laws shows only how locked in gay advocacy groups are to an outmoded "civil rights" model of activism. They are fighting battles that were live issues 20 years ago, but not in 2001.
The right to marry, on the other hand, would constitute a real gain for every gay man and lesbian, all 20 million of us or however many there are.
Gay marriage would provide gay couples with all those social security, tax, inheritance, adoption, and scores of other advantages that heterosexual married couples take for granted.
And gay marriage would be an acknowledgment that gay relationships have the same significance, dignity, and depth of emotional commitment for the people involved that we assume is true for married heterosexuals. In other words, we and our relationships are equally important to society.
The most demeaning religious right argument against gay marriage is that gay and lesbian couples are nothing more than "friends who have sex." Most married heterosexuals would be deeply offended if they were described as "friends who have sex."
Even feminist lesbians who reject the idea of marriage would gain from the legalization of gay marriage because not marrying would then become a moral choice, a statement of their values, rather than an involuntary status forced on them by society.
The other major goal, the right to serve in the military, would also be an immediate benefit to many thousands of gays and lesbians, and in indirect benefit to all the rest of us.
The military is the nation's largest employer, offering job training and job security to its members.
For many young gays who want to or are forced to leave home when they come out, the military would provide a refuge, a social structure and surrogate family much as it currently does for young heterosexuals who want to escape a stultifying home life or community.
Then too, odd as it may seem to the religious right, many young gays and lesbians are sincerely patriotic and might welcome the opportunity to serve their country.
Even gays and lesbians who do not join the military gain in dignity by being deemed capable of contributing usefully to our vital institutions and our national defense.
Some advocates of hate crimes and non-discrimination laws admit that they have little real impact. But they argue that they have important symbolic value. They send the message that gays should be treated decently and with respect.
But the "message" they actually send is ambiguous. The message, however unintentional, is also that gays are weak, likely to be victimized and need help to achieve equality.
And the idea that gays and lesbians need protective legislation is, after all, uncomfortably close to the idea that gays need "special rights."
We can always point out that those laws refer neutrally to "sexual orientation" so they cover heterosexuals too. But we all know the intent is to protect gays.
(No one seriously thinks heterosexuals are likely to be beaten up by rampaging gay gangs, or that most gay employers are likely to fire a person discovered to be heterosexual.)
By contrast, gay marriage and military access, besides having substantial benefits for many gays, would constitute a much more potent and unambiguous symbol that our lives, our relationships, and our ability to contribute to the common good are fully equal to those of heterosexuals.
They send the message, if messages are to be sent, that gays only want the government to treat them equally, to stop putting "special impediments" in their way. Gays only want to be included as equal participants in the civic life of the nation.
Call this the "civic inclusion" model of gay advocacy to distinguish it from the "civil rights" model: Given an equal starting point, gays and lesbians can prove themselves without any specific protections.