Gay
rights
advocates
will
continue
to
follow
a
strategy
employing
both
litigation
and
legislation
to
win
full
marriage
rights
for
gay
couples
in
carefully
selected
states,
according
to
a
gay
rights
attorney
considered
the
lead
strategist
for
same-sex
marriage.
Evan
Wolfson,
executive
director
of
the
same-sex
marriage
advocacy
group
Freedom
To
Marry,
said
bills
calling
for
legal
recognition
of
same-sex
marriage
are
pending
and
have
a
chance
of
moving
forward
in
California,
New
York,
Connecticut,
Rhode
Island
and
Maine.
At
the
same
time,
court
cases
seeking
to
overturn
laws
that
ban
same-sex
marriage
are
awaiting
a
final
ruling
in
California,
Washington
and
New
Jersey,
and
similar
cases
are
moving
through
lower
courts
in
Connecticut,
Iowa,
Maryland
and
Oklahoma.
In
the
past
month,
however,
court
rulings
have
gone
against
same-sex
marriage
in
New
York,
Georgia,
Nebraska,
Tennessee
and
Arkansas,
prompting
some
activists
to
question
whether
the
litigation
part
of
the
strategy
promoted
by
Wolfson
should
be
reconsidered.
Supporters
of
a
proposed
federal
constitutional
amendment
to
ban
gay
marriage
have
cited
court
challenges
to
state
marriage
laws
as
one
of
the
main
reasons
such
an
amendment
is
needed.
“What
we
need
is
more
engagement,
not
less,”
said
Wolfson.
“And
I
can
honestly
say
that
I
have
heard
no
leader,
no
organization,
no
funder,
no
pundit
call
for
retreat
or
surrender,”
he
said,
in
discussing
the
litigation
question.
As
Wolfson
tells
it,
the
next
round
of
court
decisions
likely
will
be
far
more
favorable
than
those
handed
down
during
the
past
few
weeks.
And
they
will
make
the
“media’s
wave
of
‘conventional
wisdom’
about
problems
or
the
need
to
shift
away
from
the
courts
seem
misplaced,”
he
said.
Matt
Foreman,
executive
director
of
the
National
Gay
&
Lesbian
Task
Force,
and
Joe
Solmonese,
president
of
the
Human
Rights
Campaign,
have
said
they
concur
with
Wolfson’s
marriage
strategy.
Activists
from
state
gay
rights
groups
have
met
regularly
with
Wolfson
and
officials
from
NGLTF,
HRC
and
other
national
gay
groups
in
private
strategy
sessions
in
New
York
and
Washington,
representatives
of
the
groups
have
said.
Wolfson
has
declined
to
open
the
meetings
to
the
press
and
public,
saying
it
would
be
imprudent
to
disclose
planning
and
strategy
discussions
to
the
well-funded
organizations
working
to
ban
same-sex
marriage
through
constitutional
amendments
on
the
state
and
federal
level.
California,
N.Y.
best
bets
On
the
legislative
front,
the
California
Legislature
last
year
passed
a
gay
marriage
bill,
becoming
the
first
state
ever
to
have
adopted
such
legislation.
The
bill
died
after
Gov.
Arnold
Schwarzenegger
vetoed
it.
But
Democratic
challenger
Phil
Angelides,
who
has
promised
to
sign
a
gay
marriage
bill,
could
defeat
Schwarzenegger
in
November.
In
New
York,
state
Attorney
General
Eliott
Spitzer,
who
also
supports
equal
marriage
rights
for
gays,
is
expected
to
win
election
as
New
York’s
next
governor
in
November.
If
Democrats
win
control
of
the
New
York
Senate,
that
state
could
pass
a
marriage
bill
in
the
next
two
years.
Wolfson
said
if
gays
win
the
right
to
marry
in
the
nation’s
two
most
populous
states,
it
would
have
an
enormous
impact
on
the
nation
as
a
whole.
Toni
Broaddus,
of
the
Equality
Federation,
a
network
of
statewide
gay
rights
groups,
said
member
groups
in
Connecticut,
Rhode
Island
and
Maine
were
actively
pushing
marriage
bills.
She
said
efforts
would
likely
take
longer
in
those
states
than
in
California
and
New
York,
but
supporters
were
hopeful
that
bills
in
the
three
states
would
be
actively
considered.
She
said
she
expects
gay-supportive
state
legislators
to
drop
more
same-sex
marriage
bills
in
the
hoppers
of
other
states.
However,
the
marriage
legislation
in
some
of
these
states
would
be
more
symbolic,
giving
supporters
a
chance
to
begin
promoting
equal
marriage
rights
for
gays
without
a
realistic
chance
of
seeing
it
pass
anytime
soon.
In
Connecticut,
same-sex
marriage
advocates
vowed
to
continue
their
push
in
the
state
legislature
for
a
gay
marriage
bill
last
year
immediately
after
the
legislature
enacted
into
law
a
civil
unions
law.
