First published on December 24, 2003, in the Chicago Free Press. This version has been slightly revised.
In most ways, 2003 seemed to be a year of accomplishments: The Supreme Court struck down 13 state sodomy laws; the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage; Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, added sexual orientation to its non-discrimination clause; and "Queer Eye" became an instant, widely discussed hit.
But 2004 looks far more like a mixed bag. On the positive side, same-sex couples seem poised to be able to marry in Massachusetts some time in 2004. New Jersey seems certain to adopt some sort of civil union legislation. MTV - without Showtime - will finally launch a long-delayed gay-oriented cable channel. More large and mid-sized companies will add domestic partner benefits and more Gay/Straight Alliances will be formed in high schools.
Also on the positive side, industrial productivity started what appears to be a sustained growth. The Dow broke the 10,000 barrier again and seems likely to go further. Inflation is likely to continue at a gratifyingly low level. Saddam Hussein's capture secures the end of his Stalinesque dictatorship, weakens the opposition to a democratic Iraq and hastens the reduction of American forces there. These are things to be grateful for and President Bush deserves some credit for them.
But those good things about the economy and foreign affairs also mean that President Bush, the least gay-supportive candidate, seems likely to win reelection in November. Bush continues to support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" despite its obvious failure and injustice. He opposes gay marriage and probably supports a constitutional amendment prohibiting it. He seems more concerned about AIDS in the rest of the world than in the United States. While he urges "tolerance" for gays, he seems unable to say a single word in our favor.
Not only is Bush likely to be re-elected, but Republicans seem likely to increase their majority in the Senate by 2-3 seats and in the House by 6-8 seats, making non-discrimination legislation and repeal of the military gay ban non-starters.
To be sure, the most plausible Democratic presidential contenders win no prizes, but at least they are better on gay issues. All say they support some sort of same-sex civil unions. And the leading contender, Howard Dean, is likely to be the most open in support of civil unions since he has a record to justify. All except the evasive General Clark explicitly favor an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," although they do not bother to explain how they could push repeal legislation through a Republican Congress.
On the other hand, none of the plausible Democratic contenders favors gay marriage any more than President Bush does, although all say they oppose a constitutional amendment prohibiting it and Dean advocates federal entitlements for couples with civil unions. The key question then is, do they support the Defense of Marriage Act with its discrimination against any legally married gay couples? Only Dean and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry oppose DOMA.
But even if the others support DOMA's stipulation that the Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause should not force recalcitrant states to recognize out-of-state gay marriages, what argument can they offer in favor of the federal government itself discriminating against gay couples? If they support federal non-discrimination laws, which they say they do, on what principle do they think the government itself should discriminate? Probably the principle of "I want to win."
I said Bush "probably" supports a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Who knows? In his December 16 interview with the ill-prepared Diane Sawyer, Bush said "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment," "We may need a Constitutional amendment" and "It (the Defense of Marriage Act) may be undermined at this point."
The words to notice are: "if necessary," "we may need" and "may be undermined." Everything is in a tentative mode. Bush certainly sounded as if he would have no trouble supporting an anti-gay marriage amendment, but he avoided making a specific endorsement or saying what would trigger an endorsement. It is a complicated game of signals Bush is playing, trying to suggest something to everyone while avoiding anything specific.
Most likely, Bush is waiting to see (a) where public opinion jells, and (b) if the election looks so close that he needs to generate religious conservative zeal on his behalf. Ironically, that could well mean that the more likely Bush seems to win, the less pressure he will feel to endorse the amendment. Nobody said politics was simple.
Whatever happens in national politics, we can look forward to gains at the state and local level as more jurisdictions approve non-discrimination laws or domestic partners registries. More important in the long run, we can expect more visibility in the field of popular entertainment and more support in the private business sector as more companies adopt favorable employment practices and/or initiate marketing outreach to gays. So our progress toward equality will continue despite the ups and downs of national politics.