In the immediate aftermath of Republican losses in the 2006 midterm elections, Ken Mehlman announced his resignation from the chairmanship of the Repubilcan National Committee.Â It is commonplace in politics for leaders of such organizations to resign in the face of electoral defeat.
Two weeks ago today, citizens in three states approved amendments to their respective constitutions to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.Â Nearly every gay group across the nation rallied to defeat these ballot measures.Â This was not the first time they had failed to sway voters.
Only one leader of gay organization committed to defeating such initiatives has stepped down since November 4.Â (That leader is the head of the only national gay Republican organization.)
Instead of clearing the decks and making way for new leadership and new strategies, the other national gay organizations (as those in the Golden State) are retaining their current leadership and have so far given no indication that they intend to develop a new strategy to promote their agenda.
Since the institution of marriage involves assuming certain responsibilities in order to receive benefits from the state, shouldn’t gay organizations show their understanding of this concept by taking some responsibility for their failure to defeat these propositions?