Civil, Honest & Smart

"Is morally serious compromise possible?"

This is the question the moderator used to open the event "Same-Sex Marriage & Religious Liberty: A Reconciliation?" at the Brookings Institution on Friday.  I was honored to be present for a discussion on the topic that Lara Schwartz from the Human Rights Campaign heralded as 'civil, honest, and smart,' the only type of discussion with the potential to forge a solution to this pressing issue in our nation.

The event came on the heels of an op-ed in the New York Times written by Jonathan Rauche, Guest Scholar in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institute and author of Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, and David Blankenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values, which outlined a proposed compromise on the issue of gay marriage and religious liberty.  The panel consisted of these two men, Lara Schwartz, Robin Wilson, Professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law, and Nathan Diament, the Director of Public Policy at the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.  

Blankenhorn began by acknowledging that discussion on this issue is usually defined by the most zealous factions on both sides and therefore, not very constructive and has the danger of becoming another 'scorched-earth' debate like abortion, where both sides cling to all-or-nothing, zero-sum positions.  This panel, however, illustrated that morally serious compromise on the issue of gay marriage is possible.  The goal of the op-ed was to change the tone of the debate to something more constructive by increasing comfort-level and goodwill on both sides. The panelists agreed that we are much more likely to get a better outcome if we reframe this debate from one of 'good vs. evil' (whichever side you perceive to be good or evil), 'bigot vs. pervert' to one of good versus good.  If both sides can realize that there are good reasons to be both for and against gay marriage, will will have come a long way.

There were lots of fascinating details discussed by the panelists about the meaning of marriage, the value and extent of religious liberty, the 'duty to assist vs. right to refrain' (Would a justice of the peace have the right to refuse to marry a gay couple, even though s/he is paid by public taxes?), but the moment that struck me most was when Blakenhorn expressed with great emotion what he described as a 'personal, passionate' opposition to gay marriage.  But then he said that there is another principle at stake, a principle that outweighs his personal, passionate views on the issue: That this issue is not going away and we have to find a way to live together.

This is what I see as a morally serious compromise: The ability to recognize that there are principles--like love, respect, compassion, empathy--that might just be much bigger than your, or my, personal views on an issue.  I was deeply encouraged and inspired by all the panelists at this event that such morally serious, civil, honest, and smart compromise is possible if we can all listen to, try to understand, and value one another just a little bit more.