A Tale of Two Blue States

There are many people in this world you would think of as being hostile to the idea of gay marriage. Many in the Reagan family, perhaps...you know, since President Reagan let four years of HIV/AIDS deaths go by without even uttering the damn word "AIDS."

But I find something interesting in his daughter Patti's (now Patti Davis) take on gay marriage. I think it's a good example of "conversion," for many who get freaked out by the issue, or who find gay marriage synonymous with beastiality, evil, sin, death, etc. Patti Davis's words: "In the early 1970s, I was living with my boyfriend and our out-of wedlock arrangement was regarded as rather scandalous by both of our families. When I went to a wedding ceremony of a lesbian friend of mine, I was struck by the obvious irony. Here were two women who could not be legally wed, but who were happily celebrating their commitment to each other. They seemed to have a better understanding of the importance of ceremony, ritual, public declaration than people like me who tossed off the institution of marriage as unnecessary."

I'm not sure if marriage is the most desirable fight for the GLBT community (it hasn't worked so well for heterosexuals, with 50% divorce rates and centuries of patriarchy holding it up), but it almost doesn't matter anymore...the fight is here to stay. More importantly, I think you can tell a lot about the 'political winds' from how a state takes on the issue. Case in point - this week's happenings in two blue states, Washington and Pennsylvania.

In Washington, Governor Christine Gregoire announced that she would sign a gay civil rights bill on Tuesday. First introduced in the 1970s, the measure adds "sexual orientation" to a state law that bans discrimination in housing, employment and insurance, making Washington the 17th state passing a law covering gays and lesbians. It is the seventh to protect transgender people.

In Pennsylvania, state lawmakers have revived the debate over same-sex marriage, by introducing in the state House and Senate two bills that would add to the Pennsylvania Constitution an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The legislation, which has been introduced in both the House and the Senate, would reinforce an existing ban on same-sex marriages and prohibit the government from recognizing the unions of cohabiting heterosexual couples. Many see this as an unnecessary amendment, and more of an election year ploy to scare conservatives into coming out to vote...especially because Pennsylvania has strong Democratic candidates statewide for governor (incumbent Ed Rendell) and U.S. Senate (Bob Casey Jr.). Also, wording in the proposed amendment is unclear and could be used to block civil unions, domestic partnerships, and health benefits.

The message here is twofold, I think. First, conservatives will stop at nothing to try to win elections, even if it means ratcheting up fear for no reason. Secondly, for all those who think Pennsylvania is a true "blue" state because it voted for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, need to look again. There's still much work to be done.

And maybe a third lesson is here...that something needs to be done to make the dominant paradigm (to use a leftist cliche) reflect the epiphany that Patti Davis had, and less of the reactive nature of the right-wing machine. That's poorly worded, but something is different now in this debate. Maybe it's not so much about casting supporters of 'bans on gay marriage' as anti-gay, as much as it is casting them as out of touch, and just plain mean.