Anne Cunningham has been blogging a blue streak over the gay marriage issue. In four consecutive posts on the topic Anne expresses surprise at the intensity of the reaction to George Bush's support for a constitutional amendment which would forbid same-sex couples from marrying; and also a certain regret at the fact that the pro-marriage position, which used to be a minority one in the gay community, has rapidly become the consensus. For a long time, Anne says, many gay people 'did not want to copy the straight world and its norms'.
Anne's posts are thoughtful and informative. I learned things from them that I didn't previously know. And, to be completely clear about this, she supports the liberal view here. She isn't defending the Bush position. If I've understood her right (which I may not have: she has a close familiarity with gay issues, and I scarcely any), Anne is only saying that she's surprised so many in the gay community care as much as they do given the previous anti-marriage preponderance there; that 'we could have moved through the progress of social change at a slower and less controversial pace' (with civil unions, rather than - or prior to - marriage), so avoiding a backlash; and that marriage may not be the best thing since sliced bread anyway.
If I do have this all approximately right, however, I think the intense reaction is entirely justified. Whatever Anne's own view about marriage may be, and whatever proportion of the gay community in the US are personally interested in availing themselves of the right to marry, it is having that right to avail themselves of or not which is surely paramount. Anything as fundamental as our right to arrange our most important relationships in the ways that we see fit (subject to the usual non-harm proviso) should not be denied to some parts of the community where it is extended to others - except if there is some relevant differential between those different parts with respect to the material of the right in question. As this is not so for marriage, George Bush's projected amendment is a proper matter for outrage even by those - gays or others - whom it will not affect.