Memo to Leading Democratic Candidates

Seeing as the goal during primary season is to differentiate yourself from the field without unduly harming your general election prospects, I've got two words for the leading Democratic candidates: gay marriage.

Voters, particularly primary voters, reward courage and deplore disingenuousness. And there is no issue where the standard Democratic position is less courageous and more transparently disingenuous than when it comes to gay marriage. Ever since the issue unexpectedly burst onto the scene in 2003 as a result of the Goodrich decision, the standard Democratic talking point--at least for anyone running for national office--has been something to the effect of: 'while I believe in equal rights for gay Americans, I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.'

Given the initial polling on the issue and the immediate and aggressive attempts by the GOP to turn gay marriage into a wedge issue, I understand why Democratic politicians felt the need to declare their personal opposition to gay marriage. But the political landscape has changed dramatically over the last four years, and at this point, I find it almost impossible to believe that any major Democratic politician honestly believes that it is important that marriage remain an exclusively heterosexual institution. At this point, you can almost see the discomfort on the faces of Democratic politicians when they are forced to utter that tired phrase.

So here's my advice. Quit the charade. The first major Democrat who expresses even the slightest openness toward gay marriage will be handsomely rewarded by left-leaning donors and activists and will receive a wave of favorable media coverage from both mainstream pundits and bloggers. It's a surefire way to positively differentiate yourself from the pack, to simultaneously show courage and leadership. And, let's face it, it will be a load off that candidate's back, one less issue that requires a disingenuous, politically-calibrated answer. It will be liberating.

Now I know what every Beltway consultant is saying right now: "Don't do it! The GOP will crucify you in the general election!" Well, count me skeptical. Consider the following:

• Eliot Spitzer ran for Governor of New York in 2006 expressly promising to pursue the legalization of gay marriage. He won 69.8% of the vote, the largest margin of victory in state history. Yes, New York is a bluer state than most, but 69.8% is still awfully impressive. That means that almost 70% of New Yorkers had no problem casting their vote for a candidate who not only refused to condemn gay marriage, but actually promised to legalize it.



• In Arizona, a traditionally red state, an initiative to ban same-sex marriage was defeated last November.



• In a recent Newsweek poll, when asked whether a politician's "strong support" of gay marriage would be a deal breaker, 59% of respondents said no.



• Opposition to gay marriage is a generational issue. There is very little opposition to the idea among younger Americans. In other words, there is no long term political downside to supporting gay marriage, only a upside.



• Most Western countries, including Canada, and number of states have made major strides toward marriage equality in the last few years. This trend will continue to accelerate.

In light of the widespread acceptance of gay marriage among liberals, and well-educated people generally, it has become increasingly difficult to believe that any major Democrat is actually bothered by the prospect of gay marriage. All of them have gay friends/family/staffers/colleagues and have probably even attended a gay marriage (or civil union) ceremony recently. Even if the candidates are convinced that they derive some marginal political benefit from publicly opposing gay marriage, at some point--and I think we've already passed this point--that marginal benefit will be outweighed by the marginal detriment of looking like a complete phony every time you're forced to talk about this issue.

I find it very hard to believe there is some significant block of voters out there who would be willing to vote for a Democratic candidate but only if that candidate pledges to "keep marriage between a man and a woman." Where's the polling data to support that? Though a slim majority of Americans, when pressed, still express opposition to gay marriage, there's little reason to believe that this issue is anywhere near the top of voters' priority lists. The people who feel passionately enough to vote against a candidate solely because he/she is insufficiently opposed to gay marriage are not the kind of people who are going to be voting for Democrats anyway.

Moreover, it's not as if any of the major Democratic candidates would have to radically change their position in order to capitalize on this issue. Because everyone is saying the same thing ("marriage is between a man and a woman"), an even slightly more progressive stance would go a long way. Imagine how refreshing it would be to hear a candidate say something like this:

Marriage is an issue that has always been a matter of state law. A number of states have recently passed laws granting marriage rights to same-sex couples, and I have no problem with that. I think the people of each state have to decide this difficult issue for themselves.

It's actually rather pathetic that this sounds progressive given that it's essentially Dick Cheney's position. But it just goes to show how little a candidate would have to move on this issue to differentiate himself from the rest of the field.

Of course it would be even better if a major Democratic presidential candidate had the courage to say this:

Just as the right to marry confers important benefits on individuals, the institution of marriage produces incalculable benefits for society, by fostering stable familial relationships. Same-sex couples who wish to marry are not simply looking to obtain additional rights, they are seeking out substantial responsibilities as well: to undertake significant and binding obligations to one another, and to lives of "shared intimacy and mutual financial and emotional support." Granting legal recognition to these relationships can only strengthen America's families, by extending the ability to participate in this crucial social institution to all Americans.

Those are actually Eliot Spitzer's words (except I changed "New Yorkers" to "Americans"). They were offered in support of his bill to legalize gay marriage in New York.

Though I'm certain none of the major presidential candidates will follow Spitzer's lead in this election cycle, I think his approach is the right one, and that eventually Democratic candidates will come to see the wisdom of it.

This issue is no longer the dangerous wedge issue that Democratic consultants seem to think it is. There is all sorts of room for a Democrat to move left on this issue without jeopardizing his or her general election prospects. The question is: which candidate will be the first to realize this?