Who is served by a wedge issue?

Andrew Sullivan had a nice piece about Nurse Nan (aka Ann Coulter) and how her hate speech is more than a joke.

Chris Crain also had a nice piece last week about the issue of the "gay insurgency" with regard to the HRC.

My discussion about Joe Solmonese at the HRC event (State of the Movement) is brought into a clear focus with the recent events.

I'll set aside the impotent response to Nurse Nan for the moment. My focus will shift to something a little more "big picture". Chris Crain did a nice job of clarifying what the bubbling in the blogosphere is all about. For me, it is really an abstention of the HRC from the low level chatter in favor of more contentious issues that require a very long view and no clear resolution. I'll pick "Gay Marriage" as the issue du jour.

My office mate (a Dutch national) put it thusly (as a paraphrase):

When you have gay marriage and religion, how is it possible to resolve fairness from individual bias?

Given that "Gay Marriage" is an HRC focal point - is it feasible? Is "Gay Marriage" a goal that is viable when, as Andrew Sullivan pointed out, people (with Romney and Rudy in attendance) clap when Nurse Nan throws out "Faggot"? To me the disconnect is so striking that it requires one to think about the State of the Movement.

I posit that HRC has chosen Gay Marriage after carefully considering the result of abortion. Abortion was decided by judicial fiat. It was foisted upon the country from on high. It was not legislated - rather a bench of 9 decided it for hundreds of millions. And how much money has been made for the chattering classes from this? I argue that Gay Marriage, like abortion, is a very good wedge issue and Gay Marriage is following the same troubled path - it serves the leaders far more than it serves the masses.

A proof? Those that wait upon another judicial fiat that is then turned into a political football are not served in their day-to-day lives by the Gay Marriage struggle. Our exposed minority still is lying prone to the existing law should they get sick, fall into a coma, lose their benefits at work and need coverage from their partner's benefit policies, the myriad of tax benefits, etc. Is the silent majority served by making a wedge issue of Gay Marriage? The law and body of judicial decisions clearly stands on the side of the gays with regard to marriage, but the will of the majority does not.

Does the HRC think about the comprehensive goal of Gay Marriage (and the resultant logjam) with respect to the average gay? Or, alternatively, does the HRC calculate the potential of revenue generation by taking the long view with the assistance of the conservative right?

I argue that the response to the day-to-day needs of the gay silent majority is not being served by the political calculations of the HRC. Gays need imperfect rights as opposed to a perfect pipe-dream. The response to Nurse Nan should be automatic and forceful - and not "automatic" like Pam Spaulding stated. However the HRC response to Nurse Nan is neither forceful nor effective. Rather it is calculated.

Gay Marriage is so much more lucrative than low level and day-to-day events. Gay marraige is a revenue stream. But what about the needs of the silent majority today? When you have domestic partnership - what will you use to generate revenue?

This about money versus needs. Gay Marriage keeps the HRC focused on a long term revenue stream. Domestic partnership is about a need that can be acheived but might not offer the consistent revenue stream. That is the problem with meeting a need when you need money - how will you get press and money when the need is met? But there are alot of needs - they are low level, they are far more simple, and they can be effectively acheived in something less than geologic time.

I think many gays have short-term needs that should be met, in part by the action of the HRC. Domestic partnership is one of those needs.

If HRC cannot be bothered to rise, in a substantial way, to Nurse Nan vomiting hate - I think is proves that HRC is not dedicated to addressing the panopoly of minor issues that mean something to the average gay.

The HRC is rejecting homo needs for their own financial ends. Shameful.