!['Protest against a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage' by Fibonacci Blue [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AProtest_against_a_constitutional_amendment_banning_same_sex_marriage.jpg "'Protest against a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage' by Fibonacci Blue [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons")
A fascinating thing happened the other day. A Republican insider (at least, I think that’s a fair way to describe him), Jan Van Lohuizen, penned a memo urging the party to get with the times, so to speak, on the issue of same-sex marriage. On the heels of North Carolina’s farce and various other national embarrassments, it is a remarkable document.
He starts out citing statistics about increasing support for same-sex marriage (or at least civil unions) across the political spectrum. This may be a good political argument for changing positions on the issue, but that’s as far as I would be willing to go. The question of how many Americans favor extending these rights to same-sex couples implies that these rights are somehow ours to give, which they are not.
The policy statements he recommends, however, are very interesting. In essence, he makes arguments in favor of same-sex marriage based on what might be termed traditional conservative principles of “equality under the law.” He goes on to eviscerate the tired argument about “special rights:”
This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.
He goes on to point out the real reason why changing public opinions are important:
As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.
The problem with many of the positions taken by today’s Republicans is that they rarely survive a head-on collision with empathy.
He concludes with a shoutout to “the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing” and “the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.”
The problem, of course, is that Republicans probably have some biological imperative to oppose same-sex marriage now that Obama has voiced support for it. Their all-but-chosen presidential candidate isn’t exactly winning empathy points, either.
!['SMirC-cry' by chris 論 (own design) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SMirC-cry.svg "'SMirC-cry' by chris 論 (own design) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons")