Bush has won. And more comfortably than it seemed last night. I'm not in mourning. Kerry would have offered little to gays other than symbolism that didn't require expending political capital - and some mid-level patronage appointments to the leading gay Democrats who helped mobilize votes on his behalf. Gay Democrats demanded nothing of Kerry for their support, and nothing is what they would have gotten. The man who declared, "The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position," would have proved, in this case at least, true to his word.
On the downside, anti-gay marriage bans (endorsed in principle by Kerry), bulldozed to victory in all 11 states that voted on them: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Amendments banning same-sex marriage were passed earlier this year in Louisiana and Missouri. They joined Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada and Nebraska, whose constitutions define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
There's just no way to put a spin on that. But it does mean we need to ask a bold question -- given the American electorate, was fighting for the "M" word too much, too fast, too soon? Great Britain just established same-sex "civil partnerships" apart from marriage. That's the path taken by many EU countries -- even some, such as the Netherlands, that later evolved their partnerships into full marriage.
Prior to last year's Massachusetts' court decision declaring that the state must provide equal marriage access for same-sex couples, I feared that such a ruling would result in a huge backlash. Then I got caught up in the euphoria. Now, I think it would have been far better if the court had followed Vermont and ordered the rights of marriage, but not necessarily full marriage, via civil unions.
This is a matter that is, of course, debatable both in terms of what's right and what's strategic, but it's a debate we need to have.