In the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence vs. Texas, both the majority and minority opinions raised the prospect of gay marriage. More properly termed same-sex marriage, this threshold of gay admittance to equality and respectability is to some gays and straight liberals the next major goal for gay liberation. In recent weeks, it has been endorsed by such mainstream publications as the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post. Marriage-related court cases are progressing in Massachu-setts, New Jersey, and Nebraska, and there is a likelihood that soon a U.S. court will have to decide whether to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Canada. Gay groups across the country are giving it a high priority.

Don’t expect smooth sailing. Less than a week after the Supreme Court struck down antisodomy laws, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), a proposed addition to the Constitution that would define marriage as a union between and a man and a woman. Frist is widely regarded as a moderate, even on gay matters, and it was surprising that he seemed to be promoting the FMA as the GOP response to the high court’s sodomy ruling. With a recent Gallup poll showing that 62 percent of Americans believe gay sex should be legal, Republicans didn’t want to make antisodomy laws an issue. However, Gallup has also found that 55 percent of voters oppose same-sex marriage. By shifting the issue from the sodomy case to gay marriage, the GOP keeps its conservatives happy and stays on the majorities side.

It was another surprise several days later when President Bush tugged at the rug under Frist’s feet, endorsing marriage as a heterosexual institution, but taking a wait-and-see attitude on the amendment.

With the 2004 election looming, the White House doesn’t want a divisive issue such as same-sex marriage in the spotlight. Bush needs the votes of the gay-bashers, but he apparently isn’t personally antigay, nor does he want to scare off fiscally conservative but socially liberal voters. Don’t be surprised if—despite Frist’s comments in support of the FMA—the White House and the GOP congressional leadership make sure the marriage amendment gets stuck in a committee for now.

The gay marriage issue also presents a problem for the Democrats. Of the nine candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, only three have endorsed same-sex matrimony: Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun, and Dennis Kucinich. Not coincidentally, these three are the least likely to win the nomination. Howard Dean, the darling—justifiably so—of many gay activists, has waffled on gay marriage (he is, after all, trying to win the election), but has said he would recognize the legal status of same-sex couples married in Canada.

The five other Democratic candidates—John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman—agree with the Supreme Court’s sodomy ruling, but have avoided committing to gay marriage.

It’s not that the Democratic Party isn’t pro-gay, but it has little interest in falling on its sword for us—witness Democratic support in Congress for the antigay Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and President Clinton’s allowing it to become law.

With both major parties preferring to see the gay marriage issue deep-sixed, at least temporarily, the likelihood is that the Congress will keep the FMA bottled up until after the 2004 election. Once the election is over, there may be a renewed right-wing push for its passage. In contrast, by 2005, Democrats will probably begin testing the waters to see if they can safely support same-sex marriage or its equivalent. And sooner rather than later—perhaps ushered in by another pro-gay Supreme Court ruling—it may become a reality.