IGF CultureWatch

We have just over two months to go before California voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to prohibit marriage for gay couples. If the amendment passes, marriage will be lost for millions of people. The gay-marriage movement as a whole will be set back many years. (Full disclosure: I have contributed, so far, $1,000 to defeat Prop 8.) With that in mind, I have some warnings and suggestions for thinking about the fight over Prop 8.

1. Ignore the polls. A poll taken by the Los Angeles Times shortly after the California Supreme Court decision showed that 54 percent of registered voters would support the amendment, while only 35 percent would oppose it. That caused alarm. However, gay-marriage advocates have taken comfort in the results of two subsequent Field polls, one in late May and the other in July. Both showed 51 percent of Californians opposed to the amendment, 42 percent supporting it, and seven percent undecided. Another Field poll is due out in September.

My advice is to ignore the polls, act on the assumption that this will be a very close vote, and that as of now we're behind. Here's why.

Of the states that have voted on gay marriage so far, 27 out of 28 have banned it. Pre-election polls in those states have consistently underestimated support for gay-marriage bans, many by ten percent or more. Just eight years ago, a Field poll taken on the eve of a vote to ban gay marriage in California by statute showed only 53 percent support - within the margin of error. Hopes were high. But in the actual election, 61 percent of California voters supported it. Nobody knows for sure why polls undercount opposition to gay marriage. It may be that voters are afraid to tell pollsters they oppose something labeled a civil right. It may be that opponents of gay marriage are more energized to actually vote. Whatever the reason, polls on the issue are unreliable. So a Field poll showing that only 42 percent support the gay-marriage ban probably means that about 52 percent support it. That means (1) it's close, and (2) we're behind.

2. Do it yourself. Up to now, the gay-marriage movement has been propelled mostly by litigation. This has given many the impression that courts will protect their rights, regardless of what happens in state legislatures and elections. Don't bet on it.

If Prop 8 passes, it is extremely unlikely the California state courts will undo it. The next step would be to ask a federal court in California to overturn the ban on the ground that it violates the U.S. Constitution.

The federal courts in California include some of the most liberal judges in the country, so it's possible gay-marriage supporters would win. But I doubt it. No federal court anywhere has held that there's a constitutional right to gay marriage, or that a state can't ban it. A decision in favor of gay marriage could go to the Supreme Court, which has given no indication it is ready to force gay marriage on the entire country. We either win on election day or we lose gay marriage in California for years to come.

3. Expand the coalition. Many opponents of Prop 8 take solace in the fact that large numbers of Democrats will vote on November 4 to support Barack Obama. Democratic voters favor gay marriage.

However, the picture is more complicated than that. In polls, blacks are among the most likely to oppose gay marriage. To the extent Obama's candidacy brings them out in large numbers, that bodes ill for defeating Prop 8. On the other hand, Obama has attracted lots of young people and they are the age group most likely to support gay marriage. However, people under 30 are historically the least likely age group to vote. What this means is that we can't count on an Obama tide in California to beat Prop 8.

That suggests some special emphasis should be placed on expanding the coalition beyond the usual liberal interest groups and civil-rights organizations. Republican opposition to Prop 8 could be a key, with the GOP state governor and a few other elected officials leading the way. It also means enlisting independents and religious leaders. The campaign against Prop 8 should highlight their views.

4. It's about marriage, stupid. In just about every vote on this issue so far, including the California vote eight years ago, gay-marriage supporters have tried to divert attention from the main question: marriage. They have issued ominous warnings about far-right conspiracies to trash constitutions, turn back clocks, and the like. That strategy has failed everywhere (except in Arizona, where the proposed amendment did go beyond banning gay marriage).

It doesn't fool voters, who know they're voting on gay marriage and have a good idea how they feel about it. The California state attorney general recently changed the title of the amendment from "Limit on marriage" to "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry." This was greeted as a great victory by gay-marriage advocates. But it is potentially a double-edge sword. On the one hand, few Americans like to "eliminate rights." On the other, it reminds voters that we're dealing with "same-sex couples" wanting "to marry."

Thus, the merits of marriage for gay families must be squarely confronted. An intensive two-month campaign won't win over diehards, but it may win enough others to carry the day.

Pragmatism has a name, and it's Joe Biden.

When Barack Obama announced his running mate late last week via text message, I nodded. Yep.

Biden is a smart choice. A practical choice.

But also an interesting choice.

First, to the practical. Biden has broad and deep foreign policy experience, something Obama lacks. This is important in the America of the present, the America that is fighting wars in Afganistan and Iraq while the Russian and Iranian governments continue to make disturbing noises.

Biden has a long, Washington-insider history, something which Obama had fought against during the primaries, with all his talk about change and a new way of governing.

Biden also is popular among blue collar workers and Catholics, constituencies that Obama has found tough to woo.

So the choice of Biden is a safe choice. It's safe for most of Obama's liberal constituency as well, without being too scary to conservatives, the way a Hillary Clinton or Dennis Kucinich would have been.

Take the gay and lesbian example. Biden voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, but also said that he thought gay marriage "was inevitable." And he said that in 2003, five long years ago.. He is for civil unions, and voted against the bill that would written "marriage is between a man and a woman" language into the Constitution.

A year ago, when asked about 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell," he responded, "I've been to Afghanistan, I've been to Iraq seven times, I've been in the Balkans, I've been in these foxholes with these kids, literally in bunkers with them. Let me tell you something, nobody asked anybody else whether they're gay in those foxholes. Our allies - the British, the French, all our major allies - gays openly serve. I don't know the last time an American soldier said to a backup from a Brit, "Hey, by the way, let me check. Are you gay? Are you straight?" This is ridiculous."

He voted yes to including sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes. He was integral in helping rid the country of the discriminatory HIV travel and immigration ban.

In short, his positions on gay issues are a lot like - Obama's.

Now to the interesting.

Biden isn't always careful about what he says.

For example, he called Barack Obama "clean and articulate," which has a racist edge. And last year, he declared that he didn't think Obama was ready to be president.

But Obama was able to put aside these insults and slights and look to the bigger picture. Joe Biden is someone he agrees with. Joe Biden is someone he admires. Joe Biden is someone he believes he can work with.

The pick of a running mate is said to have very little impact on an actual election - instead, it's seen as a candidate's first presidential decision, the way to get a small taste of what a candidate's presidency would be like.

What Obama shows here is a willingness to move beyond petty grievances for the common good.

And this is an important trait.

We need a leader who can work with people - in this country and others - who believe all sorts of things and who say all sorts of things.

We need a leader who is not afraid that he will highlight his weaknesses by hiring people who know more than he does in their particular area of expertise.

We need a leader who can bear up under insults and not take them personally.

So, I'm impressed by Obama's choice of Biden. Biden is not who I was hoping for - I was crossing my fingers for the very unlikely pick of Hillary Clinton, or the very possible Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who made it to the final top three.

But Joe Biden is a choice I respect and can live with. And it shows some very interesting things about Obama - that he can be practical when he needs to be, and that he won't just try to surf the unsteady winds of oratory; that he can look at the big picture, instead of being focused on issues of personal loyalty or slights; and that he isn't afraid to be surrounded by people who may know more than he does.

These are the sorts of differences that make a difference. These are the sorts of things that show us the kind of president Barack Obama will be.

"So ... How come you're not married?" a heterosexual friend asked me some time back. Since he knows I am gay, obviously "married" meant something like "in a partnered relationship."

And, of course, now that two states, including the most populous U.S. state, formally permit gay marriage, not just civil unions or domestic partnerships, and a few other states such as New York recognize out-of-state gay marriages, the question can have some additional significance.

I've heard the question before from others, phrased in different ways, but they all come down to putting the burden of explanation on the unpartnered guy. "Why is a nice guy like you still single?" or even "Don't you want to get married?"

And sometimes I hear a little more bite in the question, as if the questioner is expressing something like moral disapproval that I am still single-and at my age, too. Or they are actually wondering, "What's wrong with you that you don't have a partner?"

I don't suppose I have a really satisfactory answer to any of these questions-satisfactory on their terms, anyway. You ask married couples-straight or gay-why they got married and they say something like, "Well, we fell in love and wanted to spend our lives together." In fact many gay couples getting married have already been together for years and are just formalizing the relationship. So I suppose the parallel response from me would have to be, "I didn't fall in love with anyone I wanted to spend my life with."

Married or partnered couples see marriage as the most natural thing in the world. I just never did and so never particularly sought it. But that seems a feeble answer, so I've tried to come up with some snappier ones.

"No one ever proposed." "I'm still waiting for Mr. Right to come along but he hasn't yet." "Maybe I'm just not good-looking (or interesting, or charming) enough to attract someone." "I guess I'm too individualistic; I like living alone-my life is my own." "Maybe I don't send out the right erotic signals, whatever they are, to attract someone." But all these amount to the same general response: "I assumed it might happen at some point, but it didn't." Nor have I ever felt that there was a hole in my life that I needed another person to fill.

Sometimes I am tempted to instruct-or remind-my questioner about the pleasures of the single life. My time is my own. I can go to bed early or late, as I like. I can eat when and what I want. I can be moody without anyone else asking me what's wrong. I can go places without having to check with another person if it's OK. I don't have to put up with another person's whims, moods, problems and "issues." I'm never lonely: I have interests that fill my mind and occupy my time. If I want company, I can call a friend to go somewhere or do something.

But these reasons seem to cut no ice with partnered people. And some of my reasons refer to things they explicitly reject or regard with distaste, even fear.

Some people seem to need-I don't know what else to call it-the validation of being with another person, as if that proves they have some value-to whom? to themselves?-otherwise insufficiently evident. I've never felt that need. Or they feel the need for another person to somehow complete themselves. But, of course, even if they wonder what is wrong with me that I am single, I am far too polite to turn the tables on partnered gays and ask them what is wrong with them that they feel the need for someone else. Or, more bluntly, how come they cannot thrive being single.

I'm sure I'd be pleased if some handsome, fascinating man wanted to spend more time with me yet somehow allowing me all that autonomy I value. But I am a fairly quiet, ruminative man. I live almost entirely inside my head. And there is no way I could manage to be equally interesting or attractive to some such person. Yes, they say opposites attract. But I reply, "Not enough." And I am comfortable with that fact.

Do not misunderstand. Partnered relationships are fine for people who want or need them, and many people obviously do. And no one is more pleased than I that gays and lesbians can now actually marry. I have over the years argued repeatedly for legalizing gay marriage, and I am gratified that it is finally happening, at least in some states. It just doesn't seem to be something I want for myself.