By Andrew Collins

It's been a week now since America elected Barack Obama, and I've never felt such a sense of relief and gratitude over a political election. It's even more encouraging to see the president-elect enjoying support from such a broad cross-section of Americans. According to a recent AP poll, "nearly all Democrats and most independents" express confidence in Obama's ability to "make the changes needed to revive the stalling economy" - and so do 44% of Republicans. This may be the honeymoon phase, but it's still heartening to see such immense excitement from people representing such a variety of backgrounds and political bents.

The election results were bittersweet, however, for gays and lesbians, as three states (Arizona, California, and Florida) passed measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage, and another (Arkansas) made it impossible for all but married couples to adopt children - a measure aimed squarely at gays and lesbians. I'm not discouraged by the state of gay civil rights in this country - we've made great progress since the first time I voted in an election (1988), and exit polling indicates that attitudes about GLBT rights fall sharply along generational lines. Younger voters favor gay marriage, older voters don't. Over time, sexual orientation will cease to be a factor when it comes to employment, housing, marriage, and adoption - at least officially (prejudices will always manifest themselves, even if subtly, regardless of what laws dictate).

At the moment, however, gay rights are a contentious issue over which Americans are deeply divided, and the passage of Proposition 8 in California has stirred the passions of both sides. Before last Tuesday, most states had already passed legislation defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and several have gone so far as to ban recognition of even same-sex civil unions. In 10 other states, gay marriage, civil union laws, or domestic partnership legislation confer upon same-sex couples all or some of the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. In fact, California's Proposition 8 will - if successfully implemented - eliminate gay marriage, not domestic partnerships.

Not all foes of gay marriage oppose civil union legislation. According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted early in 2008, 51% of Americans favor civil unions, but only 38% approve of gay marriage. Even many in the gay community are more adamant about obtaining civil union rights than they are access to gay marriage. I personally have no interest in ever getting officially married, and my pragmatic side believes that same-sex union legislation is a more tenable and less divisive goal than legalized gay marriage.

But I'm also sympathetic to the argument that the core issue here is about equal status before the eyes of the law - that "separate" but "equal" never represents true equality. I've yet to hear a reason-based, compelling argument in favor of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman - if defenders of the "sanctity" of marriage were genuinely concerned about their cause, they'd focus their efforts on reforming Nevada's laughably lax marriage and divorce laws, not obsessing about the genders of those who seek stable, committed relationships.

In the bigger picture, gay marriage is - like abortion rights - a critical battleground in America's culture wars. That, to me, is reason enough to sit up and take notice, and throw my weight behind legalized gay marriage.

California's Proposition 8 is particularly disturbing on a few levels. It's a measure that removes rights that have already been granted, meaning that the status of the 18,000 same-sex couples who have already married is now in limbo. It's also a measure that passed by a very thin margin in a state that voted overwhelming in favor of Barack Obama - a dichotomy that has gays and lesbians feeling egregiously slighted by many whom they previously believed to be on their side. The campaign to pass Proposition 8 was funded massively by religious organizations based outside of California, including the Knights of Columbus (Catholic), Focus On The Family (Evangelical Christian), and the American Family Association (Evangelical Christian). Furthermore, out-of-state individuals of Mormon faith heeded the aggressive call of the Church of Latter-day Saints and donated more than half the money used to fund Proposition 8.

If you're a supporter of gay rights, or more broadly, you're a social moderate or progressive who favors a separation of Church and State and civil rights for all people, regardless of skin color, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, you may be wondering how best to fight back. One ironic (given the military's de facto ban on gays and lesbians) source of inspiration is Gen. David Petraeus, who's spoken quite shrewdly about how to make headway with opposition forces, which is exactly how many of us regard foes of gay marriage. Here, in an interview with the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review, Petraeus describes his approach to achieving success against our enemies in the Middle East:

"There has to be some way of identifying and trying to separate from the population the 'irreconcilables' - if you will, those who are never going to be part of the solution…"

"Then, allowing…an outreach to those who might be part of the solution…"

"Historically there are the really hard core…extremists. … But, beyond that, there are those who are less so, and what you're trying to do is encourage those who are less so to be, again, part of the solution instead of a continuing part of the problem."

"We literally went after some of those who were, we felt, fence sitters -- in terms of the 'fence' being those who were irreconcilable or those who were reconcilable."

Of course, Petraeus was talking about the U.S. military approach to separating violent insurgents from potentially more persuadable, moderates in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I'm in no way equating opponents of gay marriage with Middle East extremists. I am, however, suggesting that opponents of gay marriage can loosely be divided into two camps: hard-core opponents unlikely ever to come around in favor of gay marriage (i.e., "irreconcilables"), and less-hardened, potentially persuadable moderates whose support we can win over (i.e., "reconcilables"). The irreconcilables are a lost cause unworthy of both our energy and our attention. The reconcilables, however, can become part of the solution - if we invite them to be.

Who, specifically, might the reconcilables be? Perhaps those who feel California's civil union laws sufficiently protect gay people and see no need for gay marriage legislation, or those who resent the state supreme court for - as they see it - legislating from the bench, or the ones who simply feel that gay marriage is too radical a change from the status quo. I will not apologize for anybody who voted for this ugly measure, but I do think it's useful to consider the different motivates behind voting this way. Many of the voters can be swayed in favor of gay marriage in the future. And while I applaud legal efforts to overturn Proposition 8 in the courts, I don't believe we should bank our hopes solely on this strategy. For gay marriage legislation to stick permanently, we need a plurality in society to favor it.

I also want to point out that while it's completely reasonable that we should feel outrage over the repeal of a right already granted, and a legal civil ceremony already undertaken by 18,000 couples, gays and lesbians in California do already have access to many rights unavailable to most gay Americans. In nearly 30 states, employers can fire people on the basis of sexual orientation. And Arkansas has just joined Florida and Mississippi in barring gays and lesbians from adopting children, a law that effectively punishes children in need of adoptive parents.

This is to take nothing away from the anguish and anger felt by the many Californians who awakened on Wednesday morning to find their legal marriages degraded and potentially defunct. As a travel writer, I've been interested by the calls among some gays and lesbians to boycott those who funded Proposition 8. Those who favor a boycott believe we should immediately cancel any plans to visit Utah, as it's the headquarters of the LDS church.

I strongly oppose a boycott, for several reasons. First, if we're going to boycott Utah, should we also steer clear of Las Vegas and Phoenix, which have sizable LDS populations? And is it also okay to punish the many in Utah who work in travel and tourism and who oppose Proposition 8, including a number of gay-supportive Mormons and gay Utahns (despite popular stereotypes, there are many who fall into either - and sometimes both - camps)? Should we also boycott the very liberal city of New Haven, Connecticut, which is headquarters of the Knights of Columbus, the largest organizational donor behind Proposition 8? What about all the states out there that have already passed legislation banning gay marriage, or that permit employment and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation?

Again I come back to the Petraeus doctrine: Among the different factions out there who campaigned on behalf of Proposition 8, each of these groups consists of both reconcilables and irreconcilables. Applying one broad strategy against all Mormons...or Catholics...or Utahns...is unhelpful - you alienate your potential future allies while giving your enemies - the inexorable extremists - exactly what they want.

Punishing extreme opponents of gay rights by refusing to go where they live is akin to ants protesting unfair treatment from humans by refusing to show up at any more picnics. This is what the far-right wants us to do - be silenced, go away, stop ruining their picnics.

I have a better idea: be visible, be counted, and keep showing up, whether it's at a Utah ski resort or the Knights of Columbus fundraiser down the street. In so doing, you continue to spread good will among our allies, and to sway those many reconcilables potentially willing to switch sides and support the right to gay marriage. Your presence also reminds extreme irreconcilables that they're waging a mean-spirited, unjust battle that they will eventually lose.

Proposition 8 passed by a 52% majority. The anti-gay measures in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida secured 56%, 57%, and 62% of the vote, respectively. The next time these measures appear on ballots - and they will - how are each of us going to help erase these margins?

Passionate, spirited protests like those staged over the past week throughout California and in many other U.S. cities should continue to be part of the strategy - this is where we find a positive outlet for our anger, and although these events may steel the resolve of irreconcilables, they go a good way toward raising awareness and garnering media attention.

Anger, however, is not by itself an effective strategy. We also need to identify the so-called fence-sitters, and engage with them directly and respectfully.

Where will we find the half-million Californians whose support we need to win any future ballot initiatives concerning gay marriage? The answer lies right before us - at our upcoming visits with family and relatives, at our neighborhood parties and office gatherings, at our high school and college reunions, in the many progressive places of worship that welcome us, on our Facebook and MySpace pages, and in the hotels, restaurants, shops, and ski resorts of Utah and every other red state in America.

If you never thought your sexual orientation was anybody's business other than your own, maybe it's time to rethink that policy - and to let your support of gay marriage be known to the majority of reasonable, fair Americans who, if we let them, will join us in our campaign to pass rational and just laws that secure the civil rights of all citizens, regardless of skin color, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.

This week's previous posts (most recent first): Fond Farewells, Wish List, Patience, A Perfect Storm, Proud To Be An American, Obama Wish List, Will McCain Lose His Own State?, For Better or Worse, VOTE!, Why John McCain's Election Matters, Accepting Personal Responsibility