If I were betting on the next domino to fall, I’d keep my eyes on New York.

I think the real, Niagara-level tipping point will come, though, when enough states acknowledge these rights to prompt the national government to see which way the wind is blowing and scrap the DOMA. State-level rights are important, but they’re not the whole ball game: it’s critical to have (A) mandatory reciprocal recognition in other states, and (B) federal rights and benefits like, e.g., Social Security.

The nonprofits (including EQIL and HRC) do a decent job at least in terms of keeping (certain) issues in the spotlight, but expecting any one of them to really go out on a limb to make things happen is setting oneself up for disappointment. (And yeah, like every other nonprofit I know, they do spend a lot of time on those fancy fundraisers. They’re a necessary evil, but sometimes the tail can start wagging the dog.) What legislative change really takes is broad public support, not just the usual organizational suspects.

IL Rep. Greg Harris and Equality Illinois appear more than happy to laud themselves over having gotten IL’s civil unions legislation through committee and the Senate, but couldn’t pull the trigger to actually bring it to a vote in the House. In the meantime, there are now ELEVEN other states in which my health care and property rights are better protected than they are in supposedly Democratic Illinois. Soon to be thirteen.

The further down the list Illinois gets, the more shameful it is. We’re supposed to be a progressive state? If they didn’t have the votes to get it passed, then Harris, Garcia and EQIL simply aren’t doing their jobs well enough. If Nevada is further along the track than you, you’ve fucked up.

Add to this mix the recent reports that the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is actually campaigning AGAINST the legislative repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, because it isn’t in the correct sequence in its legislative agenda.

These groups are spending too much effort on their cocktail party and fancy dress ball fundraising and are falling behind the times. Pheh.

A slightly more sophisticated version I’ve run across is the argument that couples who aren’t gay would be encouraged to enter into “sham marriages” just for the sake of, say, insurance benefits. Because, y’know, (A) straight people never enter into marriage lightly, and (B) straight men and women are perfectly happy to let all their friends and family think they’re gay if there’s profit in it.