Voice of reason (not mine)

I don't blog much any more, and I've thinking recently about why that is.

Part of it has to do with time, of course. There are only so many hours in the day, and if middle age reminds us of anything, it's that time is not an infinite resource; it's a commodity, best used with care up to the point when it will eventually, inevitably run out. And -- no offense -- but I doubt I'll ever look back and think "Gee, I wish I'd spent more time sitting at the computer."

So, I try to focus my energy on things that matter.

And therein lies the second part of the dilemma. Because the aspect of the current state of the world that alarms and depresses me the most is the tenor of our political conversation. I mean, you can't even really use that word any more -- it's not a conversation, it's a shouting match. Precious few people even try to reason with one another any more, both because so many of us on both the left and the right have long since lost patience with the back and forth, and because there's precious little reward for being the voice of reason, when everyone else on both ends of the spectrum is busy shouting you down.

So how do you talk about things that matter, without becoming part of the problem?

An excellent example of how showed up today in the form of the most eloquent voice of reason I've heard in some time -- Theodore Olson, a lion of conservative thought and solicitor general under President George W. Bush, arguing the case for gay marriage. Take it away, Ted...

The Loving Decision

Back in May I wrote about the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down laws against interracial marriage, the fortuitously-named case Loving v. Virginia. In recent days a number of commentators have noted the irony that in 2008 Virginia's electoral votes were won by a presidential candidate whose parents would have been thrown in jail if they had visited the state when he was a child.

In May I happened across and wrote about Mildred Loving's obituary just a week before the California Supreme Court delivered its decision striking down as unconstitutional a California state law against same-sex marriage. And now Anna Quindlen has delivered a column that puts it all in beautiful perspective. "The world only spins forward" -- yes.

Tim Lincecum and Keith Olbermann

Other than the fact that Olbermann used to be a sportscaster, those two subjects have little to do with one another outside my personal bubble. But today they come together because I have two items to offer. One is of course the news about Timmy winning the Cy Young Award at age 24 in his first full season in the major leagues. Watching this kid pitch is the most fun I've had watching baseball since October 2002.

Item the second is one of Olbermann's trademark special comments. Now, Keith can be a bit of a blowhard; in his own way he has assumed the mantle of the Bill O'Reilly of the left, utterly sure of his own correctness at all times. That said, this special comment is clearly heartfelt and genuine and confronts the viewer with compassion rather than brow-beating. Well done, Keith.

Strange days indeed

What a strange day dawned just now. On the same day the nation overcame a centuries-old legacy of discrimination by electing our first African-American president, the citizens of California -- who voted for Obama by a 61-37 percent margin -- also voted 52-48 percent to write discrimination into our own state constitution. Never mind questions of right or wrong, the simple cognitive dissonance of that act is staggering.

To the extent there is a bright side, it's this. In 2000, California voters enacted a statutory ban on gay marriage by a margin of 61 percent to 39 percent. Proposition 8 wrote that ban into the state constitution by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. All indications are that voters over 60 years old supported Prop 8 by a substantial margin, and voters under 30 opposed it by an even greater margin. In eight years, the numbers moved nine percentage points. Supporters of Prop 8 may have prevailed in this instance, but the tide of history continues to run in the direction of freedom and equality.

Proposition 8: The Last Word

The No on 8 campaign released this ad over the weekend. Well done.

Proposition 8: The Ring-Bearer's Question

Yesterday I promised a more personal take on this issue. Here it is.

When the California Supreme Court handed down its decision affirming equal marriage rights this May, I took the opportunity to repost an op-ed piece of mine that was published in the Sacramento Bee and San Francisco Chronicle fifteen years ago. That piece talked about my perceptions of various issues as a straight suburban parent whose kids have through their entire lives enjoyed the love and support of a godfather-figure who is gay.

Three years after that piece was published, I wrote another, similar one addressing gay marriage. I liked the piece but felt it made my grammar school-aged kids -- then 8, 6 and 5 -- vulnerable in a way I wasn’t comfortable with. So I put it in a drawer -- until today when, 12 years later and with their blessing, I am publishing it here for the first time. Thanks, guys.

***************************************************************

The Ring-Bearer's Question
by Jason Warburg

“Do you think Dave will ever get married?”

My eight-year-old son and I are splayed out on the family room floor watching a movie, the very portrait of late spring Sunday afternoon lassitude. I look over at him and see every dream I’ve ever tucked away reflected back at me, his bright face a prism glinting fresh hopes and opportunities across every wall of our home. Sometimes just a smile at the right moment from this treasure chest of innocent wisdom is enough to bring tears to my soggy, overzealous parent’s eyes.

“I don’t know,” I respond, stalling shamelessly.

I am trying to backtrack his thought process... his uncle’s wedding was just a few days ago, and he and his sister and brother each had speaking roles in the joyous, family-centered ceremony. Farther in the past, three years ago, he was the proud ring-bearer for a close cousin’s wedding. I try to imagine what he is thinking right now and see him dressed to the nines again, shoes freshly spit-polished following a tromp through the ivy after some interesting bug, beaming with the knowledge he is about to play an important role in his beloved godfather’s marriage.

My little man understands weddings well. The idea of two people declaring their love for and lifelong commitment to one another in front of their family and friends clicks on all his cylinders. He appreciates both the spectacle and, I honestly believe, the deeper meaning of it all. It is something, though he knows it lies far off in his own still-mysterious future, that he wants very much to experience for himself, and his roles in others’ weddings have been a kind of unconscious dress rehearsal aiming him toward a goal he has long since embraced.

At this point I decide to stumble forward with an answer rather than delaying further. “He might. I think he’d like to be able to, someday. But right now, even if he found the right person and wanted to, he couldn’t.”

My son looks over at me, eyes clouding, brow furrowing. We delve slowly further into the subject. I remind him of a couple of previous conversations we’ve had about his godfather, particularly the one in which we talked at some length about why “faggot” is such a bad word, even though some of his friends -- nice kids, otherwise -- use it occasionally.

“But why couldn’t he?” my son persists.

I answer as best I can, trying to keep my terms simple. “Because if he did get married, he would want to be married to another man. Remember?”

He remembers, we’ve talked this point through before, and yet he continues to protest, his unfettered mind clearly puzzled at the logic which allows people who love one another to marry only if they are of the politically correct genders. I listen with a concerned but mild expression; only inside my head do I let loose my own frustrated answers -- “Because a lot of straight folks don’t seem to comprehend that many gay people want long-term, committed, monogamous relationships, and because some so-called conservatives feel their particular interpretation of God’s will should overrule the Constitution when it comes to every American’s equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

What ends up coming out of my mouth instead is much milder -- a few words along the lines of “it’s just something that people haven’t done very much before, so some grown-ups aren’t comfortable with it yet” -- but it proves to be enough to tide him over for now. I won’t lie to him, but neither will I overwhelm him with a barrage of truths he is too young to absorb.

One piece of unfinished business from our conversation weighs on me, though. I have explained to my son why his godfather -- a warm and vital presence in his and his two siblings’ young lives -- could not today marry someone he loved and wanted to be with for the rest of his life. It has been difficult, but manageable. The moment I fear more may come later.

My wife and I have three children, two boys and a girl. Assuming somewhere around five to ten percent of our population is gay, there is roughly a 15 to 30 percent chance that someday one of my children may again ask me the question which launched this exchange. Except he or she won’t be asking it about a godfather, or cousin, or friend from school or work. She will be asking it about herself. My child will be asking me why he can’t marry the person he loves with all his wondrous heart.

And I won’t have the slightest idea what to tell him.

*
(c) Copyright 1996 Jason Warburg

Republicans just say no to Proposition 8

With Barack Obama poised to win “the largest California victory of any presidential candidate since World War II” and high-profile Republicans turning away from their party’s desperately flailing ticket in droves (let’s see, Colin Powell, David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, David Frum, Scott McClellan, Francis Fukuyama and the list goes on), it’s time for me to similarly turn away from the national stage and move to a topic that hits much closer to home: California’s Proposition 8.

Proposition 8 attempts to reverse the May 15 ruling of the Republican-appointed California Supreme Court in favor of equal marriage rights for all Californians -- rights now enjoyed in six Western countries (Canada, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands) and three states (Massachusetts, Connecticut and California).

Most Californians are aware of Prop 8 and have at least the beginnings of an opinion about it. What's less well understood is that Prop 8 has attracted opposition from all across the political spectrum, as both liberals and conservatives have objected to government restrictions on basic individual rights and freedoms.

A leading Republican voice in 2006 stated that the Bush Administration’s proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage "strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.” He added that the decision in Massachusetts to legalize same-sex marriages did "not represent a death knell to marriage." The words of Senator John McCain – or at least, the pre-presidential primary version of John McCain.

McCain may have been willing to shed his principles for the sake of appealing to the far right wing of his party, but traditional conservatives within the Republican Party -- who believe in individual liberty for all, not merely some -- oppose Proposition 8 by the thousands. Their site, www.republicansagainst8.com, identifies its sponsors as “concerned California Republicans who believe in limited government, personal responsibility, the maintenance of Constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms, and in protecting California’s business climate.” In addition to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders and a long list of Republican local officeholders and candidates, the site lists as supporters leading California businesses like Apple, PG&E, AT&T, Levi Strauss and Google.

Republicans Against 8 have also developed three simple, effective ads spotlighting their arguments against Prop 8. This one focuses on the backward-looking nature of the initiative, this one reminds voters that Prop 8 would take away rights from people all around us, and the one included below features three Republicans – a federal prosecutor, a missile defense scientist and a Vietnam Veteran -- speaking out against Prop 8.



Tomorrow, a more personal take on this subject.