People are people

There aren’t many conservatives in the spotlight today – politicians and commentators alike – who don’t make me cringe. If they’d stick to talking about fiscal and foreign policy, I’d be willing to listen. Instead, their misguided focus on social issues makes it difficult for me to tune in without feeling defensive of others or personally attacked.

Even in discussions with friends and acquaintances, such as one I recently had on Facebook, I get frustrated with what I perceive to be bigotry, ignorance, or an outright refusal to acknowledge shades of gray. Where it comes to social issues, I’m as liberal as they come. Social issues a matter of individual rights, a value conservatives claim to champion. Yet their stances on these issues actually limit individual rights.

So I was pleasantly surprised, even joyous, to read Newsweek’s cover story “The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage” authored by Theodore Olson – “a politically active, lifelong Republican, [and] a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations.” Olson, along with fellow attorney David Boies, is working to overturn California’s Proposition 8, which revoked same-sex couples’ right to marry.

It’s a fantastic piece, one that made me say “Yes!” aloud as I read and gave me hope that other conservatives exist who recognize the supremacy of individual rights and the need for true equality among all citizens.

Olson sets forth some home truths that the rest of his party would do well to accept:

“No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us.”

Gay people are people. Why then has their desire to unite in marriage been met with such opposition? Olson writes:

“…laws and court decisions have made clear that equality under the law extends to persons of all races, religions, and places of origin. What better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation?…The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.”

I was criticized by a friend for comparing gay rights legislation to civil rights legislation; his view was that the treatment suffered by African-Americans far surpassed that endured by gays, and by making such a comparison I was minimizing the struggle of African-Americans for equality. I maintained that gay rights are civil rights, and that many groups (including minorities and women) have had to aggressively pursue the equal status supposedly granted by the Constitution to all citizens.

Olson refers to such struggles as they pertain to interracial marriage:

“We once tolerated laws throughout this nation that prohibited marriage between persons of different races…It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man.”

Yet people who now denounce such laws still object to same-sex marriage, claiming that their objections aren’t on the basis of discrimination. Olson handily refutes each of the arguments, starting with oft-cited “tradition”:

“Gays and lesbians have always been among us, forming a part of our society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and communities…[In some states] gay and lesbian individuals are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to cite “tradition” as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.”

The concept of tradition may hold emotional sway over some, but consider that Olson also wryly notes that if we adhered strictly to tradition, many now-reprehensible practices would still be in effect. In short, it’s not a reasonable argument.

Olson then takes on an even more illogical line of thinking: that gay marriage somehow dissuades heterosexual couples from marrying and procreating. He counters:

“We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What’s more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state’s desire to promote procreation.”

While mothers who are overly anxious to become grandmothers might disagree, marriage is not merely a precursor to procreation. Some heterosexual couples decide not to have children. Some discover that they physically cannot. Many choose to adopt or pursue medical intervention to bear a child – just as same-sex couples do.

Finally, Olson takes on religious objections to homosexuality in general, which extend to same-sex marriage:

“Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” [emphasis mine]

It pains me to think of how so many people in our country have suffered – inequality at best, death at worst – thanks to ignorance and bigotry masquerading as tradition. It pains me to see conservatives continue to perpetrate such suffering and defend it. I hated being identified with a political party known for views so antithetical to my own; it’s a primary reason why I was compelled to change my party registration.

It’s shameful to the Republican party that such an issue drives people like me away. It shouldn’t even be an issue. As Olson concludes:

“Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.”

If a lifelong, card-carrying Republican and political appointee under two conservative administrations can so eloquently explain why same-sex marriage should be legal, perhaps his fellow Republicans can refrain from trotting out their emotional objections long enough to read his words and give them some much-needed thought.

21 Spoke Up