Why, some of my best friends are

According to the most recent poll I've seen, a clear majority of Americans - 55% - believe that "if gays are allowed to marry, the institution of marriage will be degraded." And about half favor a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.

At the same time, however, most Americans "consider themselves tolerant of gays," says the Los Angeles Times poll.

That's a pattern that seems reflected in the debates about the issue that have occurred around the country. In Georgia, for example, a bill to have an amendment to the state constitution barring gay marriage put on the state ballot was adopted on March 31 by just two votes over the 2/3 required, and that only after three days of intense lobbying by both proponents and opponents after an earlier attempt failed.

Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, it took three constitutional conventions to produce a "compromise" proposal that bans same-sex marriages but specifically allows for same-sex "civil unions," which for all practical purposes would, within the state, be identical except for the name. The Christian Science Monitor notes that by the proposal,

this legislature showed that, even among one of the most liberal collection of lawmakers in the country, gay marriage is politically infeasible.

Yet in legalizing civil unions, an institution virtually identical with marriage except in name, the legislature here has gone further in securing rights for gay couples than could have been imagined six months ago, when the state had not adopted even rudimentary spousal legal rights.

This, the article suggests, "shows a state, if not a nation, locked in ambivalence."

It would seem that way at first glance, certainly. For example, while that LA Times poll says 55% think same-sex marriage degrades the institution, 41% insist it doesn't. And while half in the LA Times poll support an amendment to the US constitution banning same-sex marriages, a CBS-New York Times poll from last month said that only 38% think the issue is important enough to merit such an amendment. The two results together would seem to say that while many would support an amendment if it passed, only a minority think it matters enough to do anything about it.

The real question is, however, are we seeing ambivalence or the throes of change, change that many see coming (roughly 60% in the LA Times poll felt that eventual legal recognition of same-sex marriage was "inevitable") and some are trying to inhibit by the harsh, not-easily-changed means of writing discrimination into state and federal constitutions, aided and abetted by political mushiness and subtle bigotry.

The mushiness was clearly seen in Massachusetts. Firm opponents of any amendment banning same-sex marriages numbered about 75, with probably about the same number, maybe somewhat fewer, proponents of an absolute, no recourse ban. That looks like a stalemate, but in fact the opponents should have had the upper hand, since a genuine standoff means no amendment, which is what opponents wanted.

That's where the mushy "moderates," the muddled "middle," came in. Whining that they had to pass something because it would "look bad" if they didn't, grousing that they couldn't face accusations of "wasting time," and apparently having no moral convictions against discrimination, they left partisans on both sides concerned that if they didn't "compromise" that the no-moral-compass-and-proud-of-it caucus would go with the other side. The result was the please-none legislation that emerged.

The proposal does provide for, if you will, a "separate but equal" legalized union for gays and lesbians. However, despite some claims, it is not the "same except for the name." For one thing, while it provides the same rights and guarantees under state law, it does not apply to federal law. There, same-sex couples still have neither rights nor privileges not protections. Then there is the matter of reciprocity, the general principle that privileges granted in one state will be respected by another. (That's the reason, for example, why you don't have to have a separate license for every state you drive through.) No legal principle requires one state to respect the marriage laws of another, but generally, they do. For example, my wife and I were married in Indiana. We now live in Massachusetts. We did not have to get remarried on arriving here; our marriage in Indiana was accepted automatically by our new home state. But if the reverse happened to a same-sex couple who formed a "civil union" here, upon arriving in Indiana their union would vanish in a puff of legal smoke.

As is most often the case and as noted by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in the decision that started all this renewed debate, separate but equal may be the former but it is not the latter. And those who prefer enshrining bigotry to "looking bad" are perhaps more guilty than the outright bigots who at least can claim to taking a stand, grossly wrong though it may be.

And bigotry does indeed figure in this. The overt bigots are the driving force behind the effort to actively, legally, and overtly discriminate in law, but it is the subtle bigotry, the unconsidered bigotry of those who would call - and even think - themselves tolerant but say otherwise with their actions, that gives them the numbers to move their primitiveness into action.

After all, what does it mean when about 60% of poll respondents say that "homosexual relationships are 'against God's will,'" while at the same time, by the same percentage, insist that they are "sympathetic to the gay community?" What does it mean when this can be taken seriously:

Representative Randal Mangham, a Decatur [GA] Democrat who had previously abstained from voting, said he changed his mind because he felt uncomfortable explaining the issue to his children. "I don't appreciate having to explain to my 9-year-old why two big husky guys are kissing," Mr. Mangham said.

And just why in hell would he have to "explain" it? Did the boy ask? Why? Did he ask about a man and a woman kissing? If not, doesn't that say something about the attitudes the boy has already been taught? And if yes, why couldn't Mangham give the same answer regarding the men? Why couldn't he just shrug and say "I guess they like each other?" What does his admitted "discomfort" tell us about his own attitudes?

(This is without even touching the question of what this has to do with an amendment banning same-sex marriages. Or is Mangham thinking that banning marriage is the same as banning gays and lesbians, period? Perhaps he should move to Tennessee.)

Why did Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney use the occasion of the passage of the quantitatively proposal to say he wanted the Supreme Judicial Court to stay its order allowing for same-sex marriages, even though this was just the first step of a process that won't be completed before November 2006 at the earliest, while insisting he was against discrimination? (State Attorney General Tom Reilly has declined to ask for the stay, which the Court was unlikely to issue in any event. The fact that Romney undoubtedly knew that says volumes about whether he was acting on principle or politics.)

This is perhaps the bottom line, from the Georgia legislature's debate:

During two hours of impassioned speeches, Karla Drenner, an Avondale Estates Democrat and the Legislature's only openly gay member, provided one of the session's more dramatic moments when she stood up and scolded those who said they planned to support the resolution but asked her not to be offended by their votes. "For those of you who say it is not about me," she said, "it is about me and thousands of others just like me and about my family and their families."

Exactly. Of course it's about her. In some sense, it's about all of us because it's about discrimination. But particularly, it's about her. It's about an old college friend. A couple of old political colleagues. My sister-in-law. It's about seeing people as "them."

Those who talk about second-class "civil unions," who insist they are "tolerant" of people whose relationships are "against God's will," who support writing discrimination into our most basic laws while telling colleagues "it's not about you," are people who are willing to tolerate - and I mean that in the limited sense - gays and lesbians so long as they can continue to define them as "other." As "alien." As "not us."

We seem to be at a point where grudgingly, hesitatingly, with unsure step and fearful glances in every direction, we are moving toward acceptance of gays and lesbians as people, that is, as defined by their individuality rather than their category. It will be a long time coming - we have been dealing with similar questions about race and gender for decades longer (I mean in an open social-debate way) and still neither non-whites nor women are fully accepted. But at least in those cases it's no longer acceptable - I guess I should say as acceptable as it once was - to be openly hostile, openly bigoted, and those that are often try to pass it off as "jokes" to conceal - or in some cases, to refuse to admit to themselves - their real meaning. So yes, it will be a long time coming.

But I swear it will come.

Footnote for what it's worth: Recently at a school program I was doing for a group of first- and second-graders, before I began one of the older boys ran up to me with a big grin and said "Guess what? There's a boy in my class and he loves another boy!" A little girl classmate of his was trying to push him away from me, telling him "That's not true!" and "That's not fair!"

I stopped her, looked directly at him, and said "So what?"

His grin faded to a forced smile, he shrugged, and turned away without a word.

I'm not sure what reaction he desired or expected, but it's clear that what he was not prepared for was indifference. One thing we should remember is that our usual reaction of trying to defend the accused - because that's what they appear to be - by labeling the accusation as untrue or unfair actually endorses the underlying claim that it's something shameful. We need to be aware of our own subtle bigotries - or at least the lazy bigotries of accepting, even tacitly, the bigots' terms of argument.