A month ago I wrote about how the gay agenda was congealing after the DADT deal passed, and, since clearly we haven't spent enough resources, time, and energy on marriage this past decade, the A-gays were saying that we needed to spend all our energy fighting for marriage.
That eight- or nine-month blip about LGB servicemembers has passed, so now it's time to talk about marriage again.
I also wrote:
If you've ever wondered how the "gay agenda" gets formed, this is part of it. After a major event (in this case, DADT repeal), gays with connections run to straight media, which is unlikely to ask even basic questions real LGBT people would want answered, to talk about what they want the next priority to be. It becomes the inside story, the explanation for queer behavior that only smart people following the LGBT movement know about, and even genuinely supportive people who don't see themselves as part of the LGBT population think that's what the queers want. It's important to remember that some of the most-read defenses of dropping gender identity from the ENDA in 2007 were published in straight media.
Well, here we are a month later, and the buzz today is Dan Savage's op-ed in the New York Times arguing that Obama should talk marriage during the SOTU:
Nevertheless, President Obama should address gay rights in his State of the Union speech this week, and he should tackle the biggest, most meaningful right of them all: the right to marry.
Yup, that's it. I don't know why marriage is "the biggest, most meaningful right," but that's all the explanation Times readers are allowed to have. Go read the whole thing. If someone disagreed with Savage about same-sex marriage, as I'm sure many Times readers do, they would find nothing to convince them other than three semi-ironic paragraphs at the bottom. The people who disagree on marriage aren't sputtering homophobes who salivate as quickly as they gay-bash; they're humans with brains who read and are sometimes even looking for someone to convince them that they're wrong. They wouldn't have found it here.
Either way, well-intentioned straight people just got their question answered about what the gays want. The Times readers who don't follow these issues closely will have learned nothing about the real needs of the LGBT population. While Savage rolls off a few other pieces of legislation, he doesn't even explain what they do, much less why people should support them (and half of them are about marriage). One isn't left with the impression that marriage is the "most meaningful" right; one is left with the impression that, according to Savage, it's the only right. For straight people who have only heard about marriage since it's been talked about nonstop and think that workplace discrimination has already been banned and that there's plenty of money to fight domestic HIV/AIDS and that everyone who's gay is richer than average anyway so why does economic oppression matter... well, that just got confirmed.
As for Obama, he's not going to talk about marriage at the SOTU. The man has moved to the right on almost everything since 2008; he's not going to switch sides on the marriage issue right after the House went Republican and he's trying to shore up support for 2010 while keeping health care reform from being pulled apart.
And the usual disclaimer that I generally like Savage's work and think he's a talented writer and am glad he exists, blah blah blah etc.