Why Bush's win is a victory for gays: like Howard Dean and John Kerry, George W. Bush has come out in favor of same-sex civil unions. What that means, writes Abner Mason, is that if we can work with the Administration instead of against it, the 2004 election could mark a turning point in acceptance of gay relationships

According to political commentators, the 2004 election was a defeat for gay rights and a big win for cultural conservatives. The commentators are haft right. Cultural conservatives did carry the day, but Americans who seek respect and equality for gay people also have reason to celebrate. By supporting civil unions for gay couples--which, practically speaking, is the cutting-edge issue in the battle for equality--President Bush has become a leading advocate for gay rights. In doing so and winning, he has made it a lot easier for others to recognize civil rations, especially political leaders in red states. If gays accept Bush's support and find ways to work with him, the 2004 election will mark a turning point in America's acceptance of gay relationships.

Not long ago, former Vermont governor Howard Dean was hailed as a hero on the cover of practically every gay magazine for signing legislation in 2000 establishing civil unions as a legal alternative to marriage for same-sex couples. In fact, much of the initial support for Dean's run for the presidency came from gay people and their supporters who saw Dean's support for civil unions as courageous. Social conservatives, who called civil unions "gay marriage with another name," reviled him.

Then in 2003 the Massachusetts supreme judicial court ruled that gay couples should have equal marriage rights and that only marriage--not civil unions--would be acceptable. The possibility that other states would have to recognize these Massachusetts marriages ignited a national debate on same-sex marriage.

Last February, Bush announced his support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. His opponent in the 2004 election, John Kerry, announced that while he did not support the federal amendment, because it was unnecessary, he also opposed gay marriage and supported the tights of individual states to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

With few exceptions, most national political leaders have come out against same-sex marriage. And on November 2, when 11 states voted on adding gay marriage bans to their state constitutions, every ban passed by a wide margin.

It's now clear that we overreached with the push for gay marriage. The country is not ready for it. The Bush campaign knew this and effectively incorporated the gay marriage issue into its overall strategy to increase turnout by social conservatives. We can be angry with Bush--and Kerry as well--for not supporting gay marriage, but the country is with them.

That's why Bush's preelection statement on ABC's Good Morning America that he supports civil unions for gay couples was such a surprise. While making clear his opposition to same-sex marriage, Bush said he disagreed with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.

This was a bizarre turn of events: Only eight days before the election, Bush publicly embraced the Dean position, which was also Kerry's position. The previously controversial--and in Dean's ease "heroic"--position of supporting civil unions was now that of the conservative president. Gay activists should have seen this announcement and the president's subsequent victory as a major breakthrough for gay rights in America. At a minimum, the president merited praise for his public recognition that gay relationships deserve respect and support. There was none. His announcement was met with deafening silence and, from some gay leaders, sharp criticism that condemned Bush's decision to back civil unions as a hollow attempt to attract gay and moderate voters.

People on the left, including most gay leaders, were so focused on helping Kerry that they could hardly afford to acknowledge that Bush had become a champion of sorts for gay rights--a politically risky move given his dependence on rea-state America for support. At the same time, many social conservatives were angered by Bush's support for "gay marriage with another name," but most were reluctant to make too much of a fuss days before the election. Better to let the president win and then try to change his mind.

One interesting bit of campaign gossip helps to make the point. Bush campaign operatives tell me that in the afternoon on Election Day when the now-discredited early exit polls showed Bush losing to Kerry, the president's support for civil unions often came up as the reason his voters appeared not to be turning out as expected.

Gay voters clearly responded to the president's announcement: Final exit polls showed Bush getting nearly the same percentage of gay and lesbian votes this election (22%) as he did in 2000 (25%). Given the higher turnout, he actually received more total gay votes this election. For many gay voters, opposing sanle-sex marriage but supporting civil tmions is an acceptable position--after all, it was John Kerry's position as well.

Gay and lesbian leaders, on the other hand, have yet to capitalize on Bush's victory. Their unwillingness even now to aggressively highlight Bush's support for civil unions has contributed to the portrayal of his reelection as an attack on gay and lesbian Americans, when in fact the opposite is true.