Movements are often borne of passion—launched as the result of an injustice that teaches us to raise our voices in protest and to argue our cause with great emotion. It is that passion that both energizes and sustains us as movements ebb and flow.
For any movement to create change, however, it obviously must be based on logic and reason. Despite understanding this obvious sensibility, I confess to being stirred by passionate voices. I have long believed that helping people to understand a new issue or to reconsider a long-held belief required passionate appeals that grabbed them by the throats and jump-started their hearts. That is until now.
The “aha” moment happened to me on an airplane reading “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” by Theodore B. Olson, which appeared in the January 18, 2010, issue of Newsweek. Some of you will remember Olson as the lifelong Republican who argued for George W. Bush during Bush v. Gore (and won, sending Bush to the White House)—he seemed an unlikely advocate for gay marriage. He has in fact stunned the conservative community by teaming with David Boies, his friend and former adversary in the 2000 Presidential case, to argue on behalf of two gay couples. Perry v. Schwarzenegger is the Federal case challenging Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative making same-sex marriage illegal in that State. (The first stage of the case is over, and final arguments are expected to begin in March.)
I was surprised to find Olson involved in the case, and I was curious why someone I never considered an ally was suddenly taking on his own political party regarding one of the most emotion-laden, rhetoric-driven issues of this decade. Our political leaders understand too well how fear drives elections and passion sells—which is exactly why it is so critical that we learn from Olson’s involvement in this case. This post is not about gay marriage—but rather about the calming effect that occurs when public debate of this or any issue is predicated on asking questions (which Olson did of his many friends and colleagues), examining real-life experiences, and exploring and then sharing the facts.
I cannot adequately convey the sense of peace that came over me when reading Olson’s article. Certainly the fact that a distinguished legal scholar could not find a single convincing argument against gay marriage (even among his conservative friends and colleagues) gave me hope that justice would prevail in the California case. But it was more than that—it was the very deliberate manner in which Olson struck down each of the so-called arguments against gay marriage. His reasoning is straightforward and without angst or hang wringing. When I finished the article, I felt better—about my own perspective, about our ability to work together to address critical issues, and about our chances for making positive change for the right reasons.
The Washington political players could take a page from Olson as they wrangle over health care reform this week. As might those of us who are trying to convince others that sexist remarks have no place in our culture. Olson’s basic principles are easy. Believe in equality and justice, keep an open mind, ask questions, listen, and then present your case in terms that resonate with others not because of your passion but because of your dispassionate logic and simple truths.
Cynthia
