I heard a story -- I don't know if it's apocryphal or not, and would be glad to hear from anyone who can document it or disprove it -- that Bill Clinton supposedly called John Kerry before the election and advised him to come out in support of the anti-gay marriage amendment referendums in eleven states. Reportedly, Kerry told his aides something to the effect of "I'm never going to do that." Whether the story is apocryphal or not, it illustrates perfectly the dilemma many Democrats feel right now.

In the days and weeks since the election, the so-called "values" voters have been widely discussed in the media, fueling speculation that one reason Kerry lost an otherwise winnable campaign was because Republicans had successfully mobilized the anti-gay Republican base over the issue of gay marriage. The implied lesson: Democrats had better abandon gay rights if they want to win elections in the future. As a committed Democrat, and one who gave considerable amounts of money to the Democratic party and who invested considerable amounts of time and energy in Democratic "get-out-the-vote" efforts in 2004, it seems to me a question that gay and straight Democrats both have to face. After all, gay Americans have as much, if not more, to lose than straight Democrats if Republicans keep winning election after election.

Just so everyone understands what I'm talking about, the choice we supposedly face is between A) Democratic candidates for public office taking the position that gay marriage is simply irrelevant and a distraction from public debate over more substantive, important issues such as jobs, education, health care, the economy, the war, etc., or B) Democratic candidates for public office taking the side of the apparent majority in the "culture wars," and coming right out to oppose gay marriage (what Clinton supposedly advised Kerry to do). The third choice, C) taking a full-fledged position of advocacy for equal marriage rights for all is assumed not even really to be a choice because it would be political suicide.

The problem with the way the choice is framed has everything to do with the values that the culture wars are supposedly all about. Many -- perhaps most -- Democrats sincerely believe that the principle of equal rights for all under the law should not be compromised. Perhaps we can make short-term strategic retreats, but in the long term if we turn away from this issue, we lose our soul as a party. Furthermore, we can't win by trying to maneuver to the right of the Republican Party or waffling on this one. Will right wing Republicans, to whom this issue is important, really come over to the Democrats because we switch sides? Probably not. Will the all important "swing" voters vote for a Democratic Party that has demonstrated its willingness to sacrifice an important part of its own constituency just in order to win an election? I guess it depends how stupid you believe the average swing voter is.

Here's the irony. When we force right wingers to explain why they are opposed to gay marriage, they always lose the debate. They cannot rationally explain how same-sex couples marrying takes one iota away from heterosexual married couples. That is why there was a dramatic upsurge in support for the idea of gay marriage in the past year when the substantive issues began to be debated. Nor can religious right-wingers explain what compelling state interest there is in denying same-sex couples visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc. That is why a majority of Americans now support some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples. That is a sea change in American public opinion that horrifies the religious right.

The truth of the matter is that they have no better defense for their positions than southern segregationists had for their positions in the 1960s and 70s. And every time they are forced to debate and defend their positions in the public arena, they lose in the court of public opinion. That is why the strategy currently being taken by the far right is simply to "call the question." They are trying to enshrine in law or, wherever possible, in state constitutions, positions that they know cannot stand up to the scrutiny of a thorough, open, fair public debate. They are trying to use a "calling of the question" (i.e., hurriedly getting anti-marriage amendments onto state referenda) to stifle public debate. They count on the fear that Democrats have of losing elections over this issue to end the debate. And so far their strategy has worked. As election time rolled around, suddenly there was no more substantive discussion about the issues, the principles and the values surrounding the issue of gay marriage. Democrats everywhere joined the bandwagon saying "This question is irrelevant." And guess what? We lost.

When we refuse to talk about the principles and issues related to gay marriage, to substantively debate it, that allows knee-jerk prejudice to kick in unchallenged. We will lose on this issue if we don't talk about it, because prejudice thrives when open, rational debate is stifled. That's the right wing's gay marriage strategy: end the debate, and in the process paralyze the left. Now more than ever, we need the courage of our convictions. We can win this debate if we force gay-marriage opponents to answer the question: "What does a same-sex couple marrying take away from you?" If we don't find and stick to our values, we'll never win and we won't deserve to win. And that is something that will hurt straight Democrats as much as gay Democrats.