Gay Marriage: wedge issue

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel sympathy for Andrew Sullivan. Here we have a gay man who is also a Republican and ardent supporter of Bush. He has built a readership of thousands and made impressive fortunes off his essentially conservative positions (he, like Christopher Hitchens, have gained great mileage from their personas as former/recovering leftists who are therefore uniquely qualified to indict the excesses of Liberals).

But as he noticed from Bush's conference yesterday, his erstwhile political allies are on the wrong side of history on this one:

President Bush said yesterday, in so many words, that he is considering amending the constitution to deny gays legal equality in their relationships - indeed to enshrine second-class citizenship for gays in the sacred words of the founding document. It is very hard to think of any act any politican could endorse that would alienate and marginalize gay citizens and their families more. The Republican leadership in the Senate has signed on.
...
That's directly from the Senate leadership, under John Kyl. (What Kyl ignores is that "gay activists" have been the last people to endorse this. The fight for marriage began and continues because of ordinary gay couples refusing to accept second-class citizenship. We had to battle most activists to get it on the agenda at all.) The Weekly Standard has run a cover illustration depicting gays as some sort of barbarians intent on destroying society. National Review views polygamists as preferable to gay couples.

If there is any wedge issue to siphon fiscally conservative voters from Bush, it may well be civil unions/gay marriage. Dean's position is by far more amenable to the moderate gay community (though of course the Kucinich-supporting gay left won't settle for anything less than a complete social redefinition of the word marriage itself). What do you think of the potential to draw people like Andrew Sullivan to our side?