Irving Progressive

As the dust settles on abridgements of civil rights for same-sex couples in several states, thanks to the voter proposition mechanism, I have gotten around to thinking about the whole approach to assuring equal rights for homosexual and bi-sexual people (and let us not forget bi-sexual people and trans-gender people, who appear to be overlooked just about all of the time).
This is not new...but the problem with fighting for "gay marriage" is that this, to use George Lakoff's thinking, is a flawed approach because in doing so, you are using the frame of the opposition. Opponents of gay marriage tend to see marriage as a sacred ritual and custom dispensed only by their church. The idea that gay people should have the same rights to marriage creates massive instinctive opposition, and no small confusion - a number of voters for Proposition 8 apparently voted Yes because they were convinced that churches would be forced to marry gay couples (which is complete BS - the state does not force any church to marry anybody).
The extension of the rights of gay people to marry in the conventional sense is a process that I have a problem with from a libertarian perspective. It is my belief that governments should not be in the marriage certification or management business. Marriage is far from the only model for human bonding. There is communal living (including polygamy and polyandry) for example. Governments should not be in the situation of influencing what religions choose to do in their ceremonies either. If churches only want to marry people who have never been divorced, then they should be free to impose that rule, without any interference by government.
The challenge is that the gay community has become fixated upon the current marriage process as a bridge to be crossed as they strive for equality. My take is that it's the wrong bridge to be tyring to cross, since it forces the movement to fight opponents using their frames i.e. "marriage is between a man and a woman - it says so in this book...". Having to oppose that frame puts the movement on the back foot immediately. Lakoff's #1 framing principle is that you always argue from your own frame rather than from the framing of others.
Currently, supporters of same-sex marriage have three options:

1. Wait 4 years and try again at state levels, and try again until demographics and attitudes move in their favour
A clear majority of young people are in favour of same-sex marriage, and much of the current opposition is clustered in older people. Cynically, those older people will die off over time, which will skew the voting balance more towards same-sex marriage. The challnge with state-level campaigns is that people in unaffected states tend to not get involved because the issue looks like it is "someplace else"
2. Push for federal legislation to allow same-sex marriages
This is the same approach that led to the Civil Rights legislation being passed in the 1960's. It is certainly true that if that process had been left to the states, some states might still have Jim Crow-era segregation laws. The challenge is that the proponents still have to fight opposition using their frames. The Obama administration is unlikely to be able to provide much support for this, not because it it is the wrong thing to do, but because the USA is currently in a massive recession, and Obama will no doubt be devoting most of his energy in the next 2-3 years to avoiding a major and lasting economic crash in the USA.
3. Re-frame the campaign
The movement should re-frame its strategy around passing legislation to allow governments to issue licenses for civil unions. These would be available to any couples who can demonstrate lack of legal encumbrance (like a prior union still in force) and informed consent by both parties (this latter condition will shut up the idiots who claim that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope that will ultimately allow a man to marry his dog).

(3) is going to take some careful drafting and positioning, since it not only requires state-level change, but also federal level change, since the IRS tax code bases domestic partner deductions on the existence of a marriage. The main argument against (3) is that linkage. However, the main problem with (1) is that it forces a state-by-state campaign, which as we can see, isn't doing very well right now. Indeed, now that several states have voted down same-sex marriage, religious opponents are talking about introducing proposition language for same-sex marriage bans in more states. However, (3) provides the opportunity for a country-wide campaign to settle this vexed issue once and for all. It also passes my libertarian test for minimal government involvement in social unions.