"I confess: A significant part of my silence stems from a fear that by speaking up on these issues, people will think I am gay." Wow, Jeremy, heaven forbid someone think you are gay.

I'm convinced that gay marriage has little to do with marriage itself and has more to do with just another way that gays are seeking to make themselves seem "normal" to the rest of us.
Marriage was initiated during agricultural societies to manage inheritance and property rights, and to create a home for children. Gay couples are taking on all these roles, so why not marriage too?

Why not let gays enjoy the misery of marriage? lol (Just kidding, I love being married.) Having more married couples will only increase the tax base, and soon enough, they may not want to get married at all when they see how taxably expensive it is to be married. Alternatively, why not leave the definition of "marriage" to the religious organizations/churches, (not subject to government interpretation/regulation), and change the secular definition of "marriage" to "civil union" for all couples, gay or straight, i.e. instead of marriage licenses, all couples would apply for civil union licenses.

Juanriverao,

Here is an articile where prop 8 protesters walked into a church and disrupted service

http://www.churchsolutionsmag.com/hotnews/protest-disrupts-church-service-in-michigan.html

You missed my point. Are you opposed to having Civil Unions have the same legal status as marriage by law, and term same sex civil unions as civil unions and not marriage?

There are two ways to fix this problem. (1) is to call same sex civil unions = marriage, and use the marriage legal standard, and (2) is to grant same sex civil unions the same legal advantages as marriage, but call it civil unions.

When you advocate (1) you are going to piss off religious traditionalists, and face opposition, yet I believe those who seek path (1) are looking for social acceptance of same sex civil unions as marriage. When you advocate (2) you are going to face much less opposition and likely get your expanded rights, yet you will be treated socially as a civil union rather than marriage.

Why take the hard road that is likely to face an uphill battle? Is not the aim acceptance? Why unecessarily agitate?

I'm a luke warm opponent of homosexual marriage.
Its a reasoned, principled stand, not religious, based on both biology and culture, social practicality and heritage.
I am afraid to speak up too much because you get hurt. Gays and lesbians network and those who disagree with them can find random bad things begin to happen from apparent strangers, they get passed over for promotion, bad transfers and so on. Supporters are labeled friends and doors perhaps promotions opened for them. I observed this happen at UCLA, and in several defense industry companies.
So its smart to keep your thought private unless anonymous.

I liked the piece for its art. It was thinking beyond the obvious or conventional and I identified with the theme. I, too, am a lukewarm acceptor and have been taken for lesbian when I have advocated for gay causes. I object to that because those who hear my message think it would be expected that I would have reached certain conclusions because of my genetic predisposition. When I meet people who respect one another in their romantic relationships and can see the decency of others whether they are gay or straight, I could care less what they do in their bedrooms. I am gratified that young people have more important things to worry about than the advisability same-sex marriage.

The article was well written on a timely topic. It dealt with a dimension of the current discussion seldom heard. And the supportive material was impressive.

Do not spam my facebook account with your bs attempt to win my vote. I don't know you and don't care about this contest. What was your viral marketing budget for this? When you set out, was your intention to win based on merit, or simply to stack the deck by spamming Facebook and Myspace accounts?

Jeremy,

Thank you for a very though provoking opinion essay. I think it may have been better phased as "don't ask don't tell".

Pat

Ambivalence is not to be derided when it is sincere.

Don't worry for one moment about what MLK said.

Remember he also said that if he couldn't gain the civil rights he espoused by non-violence, violence would be the alternative.

Talk about false heroes and the correct report that Ghandi has been shaking in his grave ever since!

The writer is confused and unintelligent.

better it was we decide who the lukwarm acceptor is .the inquiry in the first day was seeking somebody with the high capabilities of analyzing what happen in the world around us, not a person with somer extremistic ideas toward the kind of getting marry with the group of all kind.for me the way we seek and chase the reality is of utmost important than that of who a person is or maybe become.

Yes, you are lukewarm, at best. This is an opinion piece not a mealy mouth piece. MLK didn't have to check the polls to decide what was right. He stood on principle and sided with justice.

The more interesting take on this would be to speculate on how MLK would feel about the issue. He was a conservative Christian and the black community is pretty anti-gay. Would MLK have risen above that and taken a stand for equality for all. I sure would like to think so.

I disagree that Mr. Haber is, as he describes himself, a "lukewarm accepter." I think this problem goes deeper than that. Sometimes 50% + 1 just isn't good enough, for the society, or for the individual. The commenter who noted that eventually gay marriage will win a majority of the votes in more states misses the point about the divisiveness of the issue. Today, 53%, 51%, 50.5% of voters vote against gay marriage, and 47%, 49%, 49.5% are unhappy because they lost. Tomorrow, when guy marriage is accepted by 50.25% of the voters in Maine or Wisconsin, 49.75% will be unhappy because they lost. What we need are some overwhelming majorities, one way or the other, so that people will recognize that it is pointless to continue the fight.

The same hits on an individual level. I'd certainly vote for civil union. I'm not sure if I'd vote for gay marriage - although I'd happily irritate the Christian right. But I know that I'm not wholeheartedly in favor of the idea, anymore than Mr. Haber is, and, in that, we reflect our society.

Nice thinking, Haber, but are you telling us you are now OK with being in favor of gay marriage because it is statistically trendy? I would much rather hear you say you favor gay marriage because your friends(my brothers, neice and nephews)deserve whatever we got. How queer is it to think that equal protection of the law should apply to everyone, whether or not the trend line is heading north?

Good work from Mr. Haber. His writing is engaging and approachable, his position was supported at least as well as other pundits currently working in the industry. Moreover, his POV is certainly needed as his generation ages and starts to flex its own political muscle.

The proliferation of personal pronouns in this piece and the fact that the author is a student at Harvard reminds me of the following joke I once heard at Yale:

Q: "How many Harvard students does it take to screw in a light bulb?"

A: "None, because each Harvard student thinks the sun and the earth revolve only around him."

I look upon the losses in the gay marriage votes in California and Maine a little diferently than others do. I see it as a sign of progress that nearly half of the voters in both states voted in favor of gay marriage. I think it is just a matter of time -- five or ten years -- until gay marriages will be performed in all states.

When I was a young man, it was inconceivable that gays would marry. Gays were still in the closet. There has been a nearly complete turn-around in the status of gays in our society since then.

I think it is in large part because most gays are no longer closeted. When people work or otherwise interact on a daily basis with openly gay people, they see that gay relationships involve the same commitment and emotions as straigh relationships. We develop feelings for our gay colleagues and want them to have the same rights and advantages that we have. I think it will be just a few years before a majority of voters will vote the way the minorities did in Maine and California.

Did everyone get it that Mr. Haber is straight? Not gay. Straight as an arrow. Not one of those gays. Not that there's anything wrong with it, as he points out. But he wants us to be sure to know that this isn't about him. He likes girls. Did he mention that he's heterosexual? Make sure you caught that.

Sheesh. We've come so far!

Post reader Chucky-El, coming out strongly in favor of the right of men to take multiple wives from amongst the local crop of 14-year-olds after buying them from their fathers:

""Blind to sexual orientation" does not mean you support gays trying to change the definition of a many thousand year old institution."

YEAH, YOU TELL 'EM CHUCKY!!! Marriage used to mean men could have harems of young girls - before people, you know, messed with the venerated custom. What a brave statement, to endorse honoring the way it was two thousand of years ago.

There are so many arguments against gay marriage. Every one of them dissolves into fallacy, bigotry or just plain nonsense when you so much as shine a penlight on them. Still we hear them rehashed time and again.

It is really simple to me. If you are against gay marriage, don't marry one. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut. By the way, I am violently heterosexual. TFL, Ken

Mr. Haber's point is well-taken- his knowledge of history and politics enrich his argument. However I feel that it would have been a more effective column had he infused it with more personal experiences. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, that is genius." I believe that Mr. Haber's stance on gay marriage is shared by many of his generation and a more thorough self-reflection on that may have lent itself to drawing support from other "lukewarm acceptors."

Jeremy Haber's position seems self-contradictory. He asserts that he's lukewarm to gay marriage yet composes a polemic in favor of it. He cites Martin Luther King Jr. and Elie Wiesel who both argue to the effect that lukewarmness, or indifference, is more troubling than hostility, yet concludes that the lukewarm will be the heroes who bring about his desired outcome in the end.

Doesn't work for me.

Juanrivera, if gays keep there sexuality private,there is no issue, but if they want there sexual purssuasion taught to other peoples kids, it will always be an issue. Its fine if your gay, enjoy all the rights you want, but its not a right for gays to teach other peoples kids what there parents dont believe in. Unfortunately gays claim religion has nothing to do with it but when it comes to gay rights, its all off a sudden a double standard. No one should force there belief on anyone else, especially someone elses kids.

The commenter "Wiggan" completely misses the point of the current debate, which is somewhat encouraging. Marriage is a civil law and gays should be treated equally under the law.

The Catholic Church will not be required to recognize their long-term commitments. The Church will not be required to permit gays to file joint taxes. The Church will not be required to allow gays to visit their partners in the hospital.

The Catholic Church will continue as-is. The Law does not force the Catholic Church to recognize anyone's marriage, let alone a same-sex one. For example, the Church will not marry someone who is divorced. No one expects them to change their beliefs on divorce. Permitting the government to recognize same-sex marriage changes none of that.

This is not about religion. This is about the Law. Civil Law. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion.

Gays are not marching into churches disrupting the Mass demanding the Pope change Christianity.

On the other hand, Catholics ARE going out of their way to intrude in same-sex relationships, using the force of Law (and police guns) to keep people separated while sick, to deport loved ones, and to take away their homes and children.

So, if you supported civil rights for blacks in the 60's but you didn't want interracial marriage, you're not a racist, right? You can't say you believe gays deserve equal treatment under the law unless you believe they deserve equal treatment under ALL laws. I pay the same taxes to the same government as straight people do, but I do not get treated the same. If you honestly can say that you think this is fair, then you be have an answer about your status as a bigot.

This piece makes the error in assuming that anyone cares why the author may or may not march for Gay rights. We really don't care. Personalizing the story to explain your actions is narcissistic. We don't care. Perhaps were you to do some homework and find surveys and studies that conclude the Seinfeld effect is impacting heterosexual male support for Gay rights, then your anectdote might matter.

As far as the issue goes, I think you will find few opposed to letting Gays reap the benefits of marriage such as marriage penalty for taxation, or visiting rights for an ill partner, or legal rights to property. Where the rub comes through is demanding religions recognize gay unions as marriage, and calling them bigots if they do not.

For me, US law should recognize civil union as the standard for benefits, and include marriage as one type of civil union. The problem becomes when marriage becomes the standard by which benefits flow, since religions have very specific ideas of what marriage is.

So it is one thing to demand of Catholics that they recognize your long term comittment to each other and permit you to be taxed as if you were married, and permit you to visit partners in the hospital. It is another thing entirely to tell Catholics that your civil union is marriage in the eyes of God, and their religion needs to change to accomodate your view. You will never gain acceptance by forcing yourself upon others in this manner, and you will generate hostility. If however you simply pursue civil unions, or give them another term when applied to Gay couples that is a bit more romantic sounding, and you go about your life as a monogamous committed couple and you participate in society as married couples do, then over time acceptance will come. It is very hard to stigmatize that gay couple that shows up for their kids soccer game, and behaves as any other couple out there with love and support for their child. It is very easy to stigmatize that gay couple that marches into a Church and disrupts the ceremony demanding their unions be recogized as marriage.

"I don't fight for what's right, but here's how I could (and you should) but I'm afraid that my buddies are gonna call me a sissy"

What a crappy column.

Well, the incidence of many behaviors and desires are greater with those under 30 , Drug use, drunk driving, auto accidents. the authors premise has a hole like a donut that is hard to ignore. He insinuates "positives" for the sole fact of being "under 30" and supporting gay marriage. I dont think so, he needs to present real arguments that are not so easily dismantled.

Illogical, wrong premis. Supporting gays is not the same as supporting gay marriage, or more simply stated you can support gays and be against gay marriage.
"Blind to sexual orientation" does not mean you support gays trying to change the definition of a many thousand year old institution.

Switch subjects mid-paragraph. What is it about? Hodge podge of other peoples saying that not only don't support the writer or are not an anaology, but have nothing to do with argument writer is putting forward.

In summary this is terrible writing and should never have been printed. WP judges are an embarrassment.

Next Great Pundit Scorecard:

Selected: 5 men, 5 women – no surprise there. Met the D word requirement – Diverse group.

Seven were either bad, dumb, light weight, single issue writers(3), Obama bashing, Fox news supporting, or watered down with “fair and balanced” writing (5). Not one did a credible job covering a big, national issue. Not one supported the president.

Three were actually quite good, all by women. One was youth’s view, one single issue, one was personal and very insightful. All covered big, important national issues.

Bottom line, WP did a poor job selecting. 5 men, 5 women - seriously? Several were so bad the contestants have no chance to win. Single issue writers, gone in 60 seconds. Excluding the 3, no depth, no insight, no original thought. Oh, I guess in that way it does mimic with current crop of opinion writers in the WashPost.

Jeremy is far and away the best writer of the ten, and most likely has my vote. However, I was hoping for more of the humor that made his first piece stand out. True to its "inside the beltway" core audience, the Post's Op Ed section tends to be long on wonkery, while almost completely devoid of whimsy, irony, and cheeky subversiveness. I assumed the goal of this contest was to bring help freshen up the brand. To do that, the smart move would be to add a voice that can speak to the generations raised on "Politically Incorrect" and "The Daily Show"

Mr. Haber asserts “for many Americans, gay marriage is a non-starter. But they do not need to be won over to end discrimination.” But the rest of the column is focused on just that, winning them over. A minor point, perhaps, but it points to a prime beef of mine with these essays and that is a lack of tight writing.

Also, I wanted Mr. Haber to more fully explore why gay marriage is a non-starter for many Americans, since if the gay marriage activists knew that they would be better able to address those concerns in their recruitment of straights. He quickly chooses indifference, but fear, tradition, religious concerns, and non-activist personality traits are all rich possibilities to explore. As for advice, he settles for the “teach your parents well” approach, which I felt was a weak way to end the column.

The body of the piece didn't follow up on the title, "I'm a lukewarm accepter." I was expecting an critical analysis of the fact that because the "stigma and stereotypes of gay men remain powerful drivers of [his] behavior," he sits on the sidelines as a lukewarm accepter, which is more bewildering than outright rejection.

Instead, there was none of that. No introspection as to his behavior in particular or the behavior of others similarly situated. Thus, I found the whole piece to be disappointing.

Having just scanned the comments, I was not surprised to find some negative comments about gay marriage. Let me offer a personal perspective.

My boyfriend and I registered as Domestic Partners in DC. It entailed filling out a form and getting some signatures notarized. While the staff that processed the paperwork were extremely gracious, we sat in the back office of a DC government building, and the "event" didn't mean much to us. It was like seeking a building permit, which I've done in the past.

My Domestic Partner and I just recently got married in Boston. As we were getting ready, we admitted that we were both nervous about getting "married." This was a big deal. It felt different. We had an officiant perform a ceremony and proclaim at the end that we were "married." We were nervous, not only because it felt different, but because it mattered differently.

So, yes, gay activists are demanding marriage equality because calling it something different, even if the same rights attach, means that it is different.

Think of it this way. When our country was founded blacks and women couldn't vote. When blacks and women were given the right to vote, would it have been okay to call it the "Black Vote" and "Woman's Vote"? Even if the "Black Vote" and "Woman's Vote" counted equally with the "White Vote," calling it something different means that it is, at least in some way, different.

In the same way that most (I hope) would find it discriminatory to have a Black Vote and a Woman's Vote, I would think, too, that most would find it discriminatory to have marriages on the one hand and civil unions on the other, just based on someone's sexual orientation. Sadly, we're not there. Yet.

In making a demographic argument, the writer fails to deal with important demographic factors that undermine his thesis.

One is that many people change as they age.
Having children and working for a living often make people more conservative than the teens and twenty somethings he argues will inevitably change things.

Civil rights were won in the 1950s and 1960s, because people of all ages made decisions about race - not because the old were replaced by he young.

I also note the birth rates among parts of the population that oppose gay marriage (traditional religious people, minorities, immigrants) are higher than the birth rates of those groups that tend to favor gay marriage.

If you are making a demographic argument, it seems near sighted or self serving to ignore demographics that undermine your argument.

Lizadoo2little: You asked "[w]ho are you (or anyone else) to turn someone's belief system upside down by changing the meaning of the word, marriage. [sic]" What gives Jeremy Haber the right to do this? The fact that he is a member of our society.

Laws reflect the values of society. Over time, the values of societies change. There’s often a little lag time, but the laws follow suit. It's good that our society is engaged in a constant re-examination of itself, and that we allow ourselves to change. Not so long ago, in large parts of this country, marriage was legally defined as something that could only take place between a black man and a black woman, or a white man and a white woman. I’m sure we can agree that this is an interpretation of the sacrament of holy matrimony better left in history’s dustbin.

But other societies are unable to progress. I’m speaking of those societies that are dominated and defined by the conservative interpretation of aging religious texts. The arrogance of attempting to impose one’s own “inerrant” religious views on society is a necessary ingredient for theocracy. Those who argue against the extension of rights to others because it interferes with their own “sacred values” are its cooks.

A weakness of our political system is that marriage is left up to the individual states and the states leave it up to public opinion. Human rights should not be up for popular vote; if they were there would be states where women could not vote, where blacks would be "separate but equal" or, frankly, where slavery would be once again legal. Let the churches do what they wish with the sacrament they call marriage, but the federal gov't should honor the wish of any two consenting adults to form a partnership (call it marriage, too, or whatever). All Americans should have equal rights, not only those living in a few progressive states.

"What they do not have a right to do is to accuse people opposed to gay marriage of bigotry. "

That depends. Gay marriage has now been debated for years.

Yet we are still seeing people in the 'mainstream' of opposition still saying gays are pedophiles out to rape your children, still saying gay marriage means we must allow incest and polygamy, still spreading hate and lies about gays.

It's one thing to realize your Grandmother may never understand gay marriage.

It's quite another to see people actively, vehemently fighting gay marriage.

Yes, some opposition is because it's a relatively new issue and people are easily led by their religious leaders, many of whom are making careers out of being anti-gay (just like many made careers out of being anti-civil rights in the 60s, and anti-woman in the 70s).

And anyone that approaches me with a real argument is dealt with accordingly. I'm more than happy to explain, for instance,the difference between civil unions and marriage.

But I got no problem with calling hate what it is - hate. And elitism.

Funny that you should mention MLK and the Civil Rights Movement. What were the results of that? Public schools destroyed by government subsidized, illegitimate fatherless welfare children who are morally bankrupt. Funny, that's what the opponents of desegregation said would happen.

If you're so concerned about being labeled "gay" for supporting homosexual rights, then align yourself more visibly with Lesbians, everybody loves lesbians.

First, I'd like to say I thought this was much better than Mr. Haber's first article.
However, insinuating that older Americans do not see things as clearly as their youthful counterparts is just plain naive. What you don't get is that this "gay marriage thing" is not about penalizing the homosexual community.
We adopt morals, values and lifestyles that stick with us. As we age, our believe systems become more deeply ingrained in our being. Many who reject gay marriage do so because it conflicts with their creed regarding the sacrament of holy matrimony. The word marriage invokes a sacred value that can not be diminished by the feelings or attitudes of others. Who are you (or anyone else) to turn someone's belief system upside down by changing the meaning of the word, marriage.
Why is it so imperative that homosexual unions, which ARE different than hetero, be called by the same name? A name that has meant the same thing for centuries?
Is it that gays want equal rights or that they want to justify, sanctify, and standardize their relationship(s)? Maybe both. Yet, the same can be accomplished by employing a new word to symbolize the sanctity of homosexual marriage. Is a rose by any other name still a rose? Do you feel comfortable calling pansies roses?

A lot of gays and pro-gay people are making the following argument:
1) Gays are entitled to all the fundamental rights.
2) Marriage is a fundamental right.
3) Same-sex relationships are a kind of marriage.
Hence
4) Gays are entitled to same-sex marriage.
----------
After making these arguments they conclude that those who oppose 4) are thereby denying 1), and denying that gays are entitled to all fundamental rights.

But this is a mistake. Many people who oppose gay marriage (or like me, are skeptics) fully grant 1). Of course gay people are entitled to all fundamental rights. But it is not clear that marriage is a fundamental right and it is not clear that same-sex relationships can ever be a variety of marriage.

Gays may disagree and insist that marriage IS a fundamental right and that gay relationships ARE a form of marriage. They have a right to present their case.

What they do not have a right to do is to accuse people opposed to gay marriage of bigotry. People may oppose gay marriage, not out of bigotry or out of homophobia, but simply out of a feeling that this is an experiment which could harm society.

This seemed a like badly written high school term paper.

I'm old enough to remember very similar arguments on Civil Rights issues.

Others may recall the concept of "separate but equal", which were defended as a fair-minded way to deal with an issue that most Americans could not quite tolerate. We may also recall that the results of that concept were unsatisfactory.

The best way I know to preserve those rights that I hold dear is to vigorously defend those same rights for ALL Americans.

There is precious little difference between deciding who can or cannot marry, and who must sit where on a bus, or in a movie theater.

Bigotry, like flatulence, is natural to humans. Neither should be expressed publicly, or enshrined in law.

Interestingly, I kept returning to something in the second paragraph. Why would it be so problematic if people DO think the writer is gay? Presumably he and those close to him know otherwise. Why is the opinion of others of such significance that it directs his behavior?

I agree that the topic -- whether straight people are doing enough to advocate for gay rights -- is a timely and thought provoking one. But this author seems to have spent a little bit too much time with Bartlett's familiar quotations. We have Letters from a Birmingham jail, the turtle on the fence, and Elie Wiesel, and the quotes injected into the piece seem to distract, rather than add to its narrative force.

The first 2 paragraphs got my attention because they introduced a great topic: What it's like for a straight male to be an advocate for gay rights.

And then, whoosh, away went the interesting topic only to be replaced with the most generic state-of-gay-rights-today musings.

Too bad, I'd love to read more about the topic that was (or seemed to be) the thesis.

'Martin Luther Kings views are not at all "hard to discern" as his chief aide and the creator of the March on Washington was an openly gay man named Bayard Rustin.'

The only thing this would indicated is that, whatever his views might have been, they didn't necessarily come to bear on the staffing decisions for his organization. This fact, on its face, does not give much insight into what Rev. King's views were or would have been on homosexuality and marriage. Not without at least some degree of self-serving inference, anyway.

I thought the start was good - the admission that he was a lukewarm acceptor. If he'd continued with this theme I think the column would have been more interesting. Why is he this way? Why are other straight males this way? What are ways that he thinks he and other straight males could change? etc...

Instead, the author goes into several paragraphs repeating well known facts about younger generations and people's changing attitude towards gays. Ho hum...

Martin Luther Kings views are not at all "hard to discern" as his chief aide and the creator of the March on Washington was an openly gay man named Bayard Rustin.

Now go "Google" him children.

The writer makes the tacit assumption throughout that there are no mature rational social arguments for maintianing the current definition of marriage. His entire assumption is that gay marriage is the correct social policy and only older people, presumbaly bound by atavistic prejudice, would oppose changing the definition. Harvard or not, a more intelligent editorial or op ed would have at least explored the ideas on both sides, instead of dismissing one side as out of hand ridicuolusly out dated.

The first commenter on this thread raised the true point that Mr. Haber never argued that his position on gay marriage was right, only that public attitudes toward gay marriage was shifting. The column itself was fine, with with one major flaw and a minor one, but the conclusion it built up to was that Mr. Haber can change public attitudes because he is, well, Mr. Haber.

The major flaw in the argument is one that has probably not occurred to Mr. Haber at all. Martin Luther King's view about homosexuality, let alone gay marriage, are a little hard to discern from the historical record. Elie Wiesel was a survivor of the Holocaust in Europe and bases most of his writings on that experience. Neither is an obvious source for an argument to change American marriage laws, unless one simply assumes that because King preached against racism and Wiesel wrote about what the Holocaust means they would both naturally be sympathetic to gay marriage. Because laws that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman are just like Jim Crow and the extermination of Europe's Jews, or something.

Now if Mr. Haber believes that, he is free to and free to make the argument here. He doesn't; he simply assumes its truth. His argument is therefore likely to persuade only those who already agree with him about the subject. I wish him luck confronting his ignorant parents about their prejudices; I have a feeling he'll need it.

You lost me with the first paragraph. Invoking the civil rights movement as emotional dagger to guilt trip those who object to cultural nihilism isn’t original or effective.

When given the chance to actually vote over 90% of the Country says no to the gay's. Even using dumbed down American math that appears to be a rather large majority. So now DC will continue to push for gay legislation that runs directly opposite the prevailing ideals and morals of the Country at large.

This is a fair piece. Jeremy has a flair for research and statistics. But this seemed a step down from his entry piece, which was tops. I would have liked to have his gay friends with at least first names put higher in the column and learn more about them. He does blend the personal into the national and he is honest about his faults. But it reminds me a little of Maame's first week column in that it's a bit discouraging--will Jeremy go to a march or talk to his parents, and will talking to his parents do any good?

Hmmm. Why isn't Maine mentioned? I agree, this is a tired argument with nothing new to compel me to listen. College work, at best.

Perhaps some of the older generation become more conservative, but there are those of us who remember and were involved in the civil rights marches, the fight women had for equal rights, the Roe v. Wade decision, and many other instances where we made a difference in the laws and the future for many.

So the indifference of younger people and the non-involvement is the problem, not the older generation. If you believe in a cause, then you have to step up to the plate and fight for it - not sit back and let someone else do it for you. Major battles were won, so the freedoms are taken for granted now.

Yawn.

Tired piece. Tired argument. Gays unite and stop spending your money where you are reviled. I'd like to have seen civil rights for blacks put to the ballot in the 60's. I can think of a large swath of this nation where they wouldn't be voting now.

"Lukewarm accepter," eh? Starting with the "Letter from Birmingham Jail" went far towards bridging a wide generational gap with this reader. I liked the implicit acknowledgment that his generation is not the first one with firing neurons. The Seinfeld reference is a kind of cultural shorthand, one that I know well, and this again reminded me that even though Mr.Haber hasn't been around as long as I have, we have we can share some of the same intellectual and cultural territory.

I found the final paragraph a bit weak. But I got there, didn't I?

Good job. This guy has proven he can write for an audience beyond his own age group. Bravo.

This column was tedious, trite, and ultimately incoherent. Although it had a kernel of an interesting idea, it remained completely undeveloped.

Rather than actually criticize the immaturity of his own confessed fear of being tagged as gay, he embraces and valorizes it, bizarrely wearing as a badge of honor Dr. King's moral condemnation of indifferent moderates.

Then, as another commenter noted, there is a disjointed digression into the twisted world of the Clintons, which makes no real point. Is it that he should support equality because he does whatever the Clintons do?

Next, we hear that he--proudly indifferent moderate who valorizes his immature fear of being tagged as gay--is to be the savior of gay people if only they will engage him. Really? How would they do that, exactly, without getting so close that some random stranger might trigger a masculinity meltdown by mistaking him for gay by association with known gays?

Lastly, we have some sort of claim that intra-family lobbying is where a fearful, indifferent moderate can make a difference. Is the ultimate point that his sense of masculinity is too delicate to ever do anything publicly to support gay equality--and that there's nothing wrong with his cowardice--so he's going to save the gay world by lobbying his parents, in the seclusion of their home, safely away from the public gaze of all those millions of people whom he is certain must be on pins and needles about whether he's gay or straight?

In the final analysis, I respect his openness about his discomfort about being tagged as gay. The problem is that having begun that conversation, he does absolutely nothing remotely insightful or useful to develop it. Having shared his secret fear, all he then does is celebrate as some kind of red-blooded straight male virtue and propose an anemic course of action that is carefully designed to allow him to claim to be doing something useful without ever feeling personally uncomfortable. Trite.

This column was tedious, trite, and ultimately incoherent. Although it had a kernel of an interesting idea, it remained completely undeveloped.

Rather than actually criticize the immaturity of his own confessed fear of being tagged as gay, he embraces and valorizes it, bizarrely wearing as a badge of honor Dr. King's moral condemnation of indifferent moderates.

Then, as another commenter noted, there is a disjointed digression into the twisted world of the Clintons, which makes no real point. Is it that he should support equality because he does whatever the Clintons do?

Next, we hear that he--proudly indifferent moderate who valorizes his immature fear of being tagged as gay--is to be the savior of gay people if only they will engage him. Really? How would they do that, exactly, without getting so close that some random stranger might trigger a masculinity meltdown by mistaking him for gay by association with known gays?

Lastly, we have some sort of claim that intra-family lobbying is where a fearful, indifferent moderate can make a difference. Is the ultimate point that his sense of masculinity is too delicate to ever do anything publicly to support gay equality--and that there's nothing wrong with his cowardice--so he's going to save the gay world by lobbying his parents, in the seclusion of their home, safely away from the public gaze of all those millions of people whom he is certain must be on pins and needles about whether he's gay or straight?

In the final analysis, I respect his openness about his discomfort about being tagged as gay. The problem is that having begun that conversation, he does absolutely nothing remotely insightful or useful to develop it. Having shared his secret fear, all he then does is celebrate as some kind of red-blooded straight male virtue and propose an anemic course of action that is carefully designed to allow him to claim to be doing something useful without ever feeling personally uncomfortable. Trite.

"As to the generational gap, this writer and the analysis by two professors at Columbia seem to miss one likely fact, many people become more politically conservative as they become older."
+++Not by that much, or those in the older generation who are opposed to gay marriage would have been overwhelmingly in favor of it 40 years ago.

I support gay marriage for same sex couples. However, I discern some weaknesses in this column. Hardly a sign of political courage for Schumer and the Clintons to change their positions on this issue. Schumer has a safe seat in generally liberal New York. Hillary seems to have abandoned any intentions of seeking high elective office and it's easy for Bill Clinton to change his opinion about anything, no longer being president.

As to the generational gap, this writer and the analysis by two professors at Columbia seem to miss one likely fact, many people become more politically conservative as they become older.

Nice column.

I don't think Elie Wiesel's quote really applies in today's caustic political climate. Today's Republican Party uses thinly veiled hatred toward blacks, Hispanics, immigrants and (most of all) gays to get poorly educated, low-income working whites (particularly in the South) to consistently vote against their own economic self-interest. "Hate" is indeed precisely the issue.

In any case, civil rights for a minority should not be decided by a thin majority in a special election. That's just wrong, and that's why we have constitutional law, the principle of equal protection under the law, and a Supreme Court (right, Harvard law student?). The legal parallel to anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 is exact. The state must have some compelling reason to deny rights, and here it clearly does not.

Yawn...

You are right. I am indifferent on this issue.

I liked the piece very much on my first read. Quotes, anecdotes, data, and personal confessions kept it interesting.

Still I think the piece could be tightened up by eliminating the third paragraph - the one on prominent politicians. It's disconnected and it raises a question that is never answered.

I also found the closing sentence to be a cumbersome, weak, somewhat jarring non sequitur. It's complexity makes it cumbersome. It is weak because it argues we must "embrace the opportunity to lead" rather than just "lead." Bumping up against the word "right" jarred me, given that he is arguing for an outcome opposed by the political right. I had to double check his meaning and rule out a double entendre. It was also jarring because the "rightness" of marriage equality was never argued. He only argued that such an outcome is demographically inevitable.