Dear George,

I'd like to give folks some food for thought as they consider the context in which to regard Creigh Deeds' support for the constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

First, we know how nasty partisan politics has become. The right wing tried to use gay marriage against Warner and Kaine in 2001 when the issue wasn't even on the table. It’s playground politics -- Democrats need to do what our mothers always told us to do when we’re called names: just ignore it.

Most Americans now support civil unions, even if not gay marriage. Was this true 20 years ago? Ten? No. Political and social change happens when the majority of people are ready for it. That's not to say we should just sit back and wait for people to get ready. First, they need to be educated. The current public debate, with people pushing the envelope in states like Vermont and Massachusetts, is putting the subject on the table. The next phase is for it to be chewed over in people's minds: well, what IF Uncle Fred and his partner got married -- would our lives change? Would anyone be hurt? Would society come screeching to a halt? When people start thinking about it, the answer will be obvious -- no.

The next stage after that is internalization -- when enough people have developed enough of a sense that it seems right, and they can’t conceive of denying this right. At that point, the power of the right wing to defeat progressives by saying "oooh, look, he supports gay marriage!" will be gone.

In fact, it's just about gone already -- because, the majority of Americans at this point don't care. They have more important things to worry about than whether their neighbors are married or not, whomever they may be. There's a small group of ultra-right wingers who care about preventing gay marriage — but while the majority of Americans may still think it's kind of a strange idea, most don't really have strong feelings about it. These folks will gradually move into the support column, because as gay rights have moved into the mainstream, they have learned that their own quality of life has not been affected--but that of their family members, friends and neighbors has. Soon, it will be a no-brainer. At that point, it will seem as unfortunate to have a constitutional amendment preventing gay marriage as it does to us now to have had one preventing integration.

But is this really a step backward? Let’s look at history. About segregation, then Virginia attorney general and candidate for governor Lindsay Almond shrewdly said there was only one way to end segregation: "keep shoving segregation down their throats until the good people rise up and make you do the right thing."

Remember, the proposed amendment has several hoops it has to jump through, one of which is the voter referendum. Americans, as a people, have a strongly developed sense of fairness. It’s unfortunate that some want to enshrine prejudice into Virginia’s constitution, but we’ve learned that you can’t make something constitutional just by forcing it into the constitution when it don’t fit — look at the 18th and 21st amendments of the US Constitution.

I know it’s easy for me to say — I ’m not denied the right to marry. But less than a century ago, I wouldn’t have been allowed to vote. Today, I’m being told that my brain is congenitally unable to comprehend math and science. Prejudice will always be with us, but it won’t always be enshrined in our laws. I’m not saying be patient -- we should all speak up when we feel we can, and those of us who have the least to lose should speak the loudest.

Creigh says he wants to let the people of Virginia decide. If the people of Virginia show that they believe in equality and freedom, we’ll all have won. If not, it will show us that’s there’s always more work to be done when it comes to ending hate.

Valerie L'Herrou (electronic mail, February 11, 2005)

(PS: If I was gay, I’d run out and buy a “traditional marriage” license plate the first day they became available.)