I would offer this thought experiment to anyone
who thinks picking through the ashes of defeat
merits the status of 'progressive':

Which founding father would have stood up
and tried to add homosexual marriage
rights into the constitution?

Ok. Now visualize this gentleman, whomever in your mind he may be - to stand in front of Ben Franklin, Adams,Jefferson, Hamilton, Hancock, et.al. in your minds eye. He is to give a speech
about homosexuals being given every
right and accord to be treated as
married people.

Jot down, on a piece of paper the responses
of the various founders. Hamilton. Jefferson,
etc. 'Conservative', 'Liberal'.  Then
organize it by state. Find which state
puts the greatest amount of support
for it.

Then try to study it from another perspective:
did your audience see this as a states rights
issue, or a federal issue?

Now take it one step further. Lets say
Good Ole Ben Franklin did some Stem Cell
Research experiments and brought them
in.  A position defining viability needs
to be forged for the purposes of law.

What would they say about state mandated abortion
of the offspring of two clones? (vis a vis 'Code 46').  Would this same person argue the issue?

Alright lets assume you get this far
without getting tarred and feathered, these
gentlemen are a fairly tolerant and open minded
bunch.

Here comes the real challenge:
Take three more positions in addition to the
above - a position that the state should be
allowed to seize property, a position that
corporations such as the east india company
should be accorded special rights, and be freed
from tax burdens (while shouldering taxes
80% on the backs of your constituents), and
that states should look the other way
when the federal government wants to spy
on individuals.

If you're not left hanging on the
highest limb, as a Tory spy - let me know.

The most probably outcome: you would be
laughed out of the room as a madman.

However, to win this fight we will have to reframe the arguementand show a set of values as well as a set of facts.

As long as the arguement is over the "President's Nominee" and his or her "right to an up-or-down vote",  the Republicans have held an edge becuase the terms of the argument imply a Presidential right to out anyone on the court.  "Advice and Consent" always sounds weaker by comparison.

However,  making the fight over one of "America's Judges" implies a much broader set of criteria for a nominee.  If we include the entire nation in the arguemnt, then the 49 plus% of voters who oppose Bush have to be taken into account, as well as all the poll numbers on issues.

Make the terms, as well as the facts work in our favor.

Cat. 1: support ssm/gay marriage rights, consider homosexuality no sin- 29%
Cat. 2: support full gay marriage rights, consider homosexuality possibly a sin- 8%
Cat. 3: support legally marriage-equal civil unions, but reject bars on ssm (DoMA, FMA)- 8%
Cat. 4: support lesser civil unions/domestic partnerships, support bars on ssm- 15%
Cat. 5: no recognition, consider homosexuality sin, support all bars on ssm- 40%

These are the way people sort out according to their view of the social status of gay people.  Category 1 is people who view gay folks as equal citizens and spiritually equal, 2 views gay people as equal citizens but doubt their full (i.e. spiritual) equality, 3 is unclear on whether to see gay people as materially equal or as second class citizens.  Category 4 sees gay people as distinctly second class citizens/human beings.  Category 5 sees gay people as nearly (or fully) nonhuman.  The dividing line between 4 and 5 is the most murky one in pollings- it varies by 2-5%, but add together to 55% in the past year.  It's ugly to contemplate as a whole, but it's who and how our fellow citizens are.

You can check/parse all the national pollings against this breakdown.  Stuff like DoMA and the FMA get ~55% national agreement, and so on.  

Massachusetts pollings run 15% liberal relative to national averages on just about everything social issues, and Mass. polling on gay marriage reflects exactly the numbers above if you take 15-16% away from Category 5 and add them to Category 1.  E.g. pollings about the Travaglini-Lees proposed state constitutional amendment (proposed bar on ssm, but legally marriage-equal civil unions) run between 52% and 60% support in pollings- Category 3 voters split on it depending how and when they are being asked.  (Yes, it means that gay marriage is in essence secured as an institution in Mass.  The national game is now about the 'Christian' Right containing it to a few Blue states.)

Sadly, we can't forget that places like Texas or Alabama will have breakdowns that are 12-14% off the national averages in the other direction, i.e. Category 5 clearing 50% and Category 1 closer to 15% than 20%.

The 'backlash' last year was all about Category 2/3/4 voters swinging to Category 5, then the 'backlash' faded and Categories 2/3/4 have reestablished, and there is continuing bleeding between Categories in a liberal net trend.  My best guess is that the bleeding nets to 2-3% loss of Category 5 per year, at least in Blue States, but the effect seems very slow to arrive in Categories 1 and 2.  The political meaning of this is that gay marriage shouldn't be pressed too hard in states that are more than a few percent less liberal than Massachusetts in the next year or two, but in five or six years things should be close enough to majority support in most Blue States for its institution.

Dobson and the like are through, at least in a third of the country in the next five to ten years.  And they do know it, if you watch the manouvering closely enough.  What they're arguing about and for, what all this judge furore is about, is the creation of a legal/jurisprudential protectorate over the Bible Belt and the dominions of the Christian Right theocracy.  I suspect the CR leaders personally hardly actually care about gay marriage except that it truly breaks up the Tradition basis and platform of their political-theological power.

That's the opening of an interesting assessment on the op-ed page of the NYTimes yesterday.