Suppose some politician responds to a question on gay marriage by answering "I passionately support civil rights of individual lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, but I also strongly support preservation of traditional marriage." How would the interest groups react? Both conservative and liberal groups would likely accuse him of political inconsistency or worse, outright moral hypocrisy.
What is true, however, is that this is exactly how many Americans feel about the debate. Despite attempts by both groups to portray this social controversy as an epic moral struggle, many Americans have valid reasons for supporting an ambiguous but balanced solution toward LGBT rights.
As an "evangelical Democrat," I certainly respect the concerns of both sides of this debate. For one side, legalization of same-sex marriage represents fundamental justice for a group of people long discriminated against for their sexual orientation. To the other side however, union between a man and a woman is an essential foundation to society's existence, a sacred institution that rightfully merits a unique legal/cultural status. Unfortunately, rather than fostering a respectful dialogue to address the concerns of both sides, gay marriage has become a divisive, polarizing issue in U.S. politics. While the social liberals have used activist judges to forcefully redefine marriage, the social conservatives too have attempted to use a strong federal government to amend the Constitution. While one side has accused other of "anachronistic bigotry," the other side has responded by condemning their opponents of "immoral sodomy." In all honesty, are the objectives of the two spectrums that mutually exclusive from each other?
I believe both individual dignity and sanctity of marriage are "traditional" values of American society. While I respect religious communities' discomfort with the gay lifestyle, it is not ethical to levy legal harassments against group of individuals simply because one disagrees with their private behavior. Even if marriage is an ideal relationship, every individual is free to live an alternative lifestyle. Tolerance is an American virtue and many in American society do support abolishing legal discriminations against individual LGBT citizens in employment, education, military and other areas.
However, there is a distinction between tolerance and public affirmation of same-sex unions. For instance, California voters passed the state's Proposition 8 largely due to a majority's concerns that legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to promotion of a "gay lifestyle" in elementary schools.
Numerous religious-affiliated institutions like Catholic hospitals have protested that they cannot morally recognize the existence of same-sex unions among their own employees. The whole dilemma is because in the minds of myself and majority of the public, society has an inherent interest in promoting one type of relationship over others, for instance favoring monogamy over polygamy.
For all its flaws, we view heterosexual unions as the single most important social institution worthy of public encouragement and legal sanctification. While it may be illogical, public sentiment has largely taken offense with the notion that traditional marriage is only one of many available lifestyle options. Perhaps we are not inclusive enough in our social outlook, but it would be an elitist behavior on the part of the liberal activists to simply ignore such public preferences.
While recognizing the cherished status of heterosexual unions in society, many politicians in both parties have sought to provide basic partnership benefits to same-sex couples. Certainly these compromises will not satisfy the zealots on both sides of the debate. Nonetheless, harmonious solutions to this issue will be found not through partisan activism or condemnation, but rather through respectful dialogue on both sides.
Jong Eun Lee is a senior in the School of Public Affairs and a moderate liberal columnist for The Eagle. You can reach him at edpage@theeagleonline.com.
