A Convenient Epiphany

In the capitals of our nation a person’s worth is defined by the size of his bank account, his clout or his political expediency.

There has been a mass epiphany within the ranks of the Republican Party's politicians.  For many in The Grand Old Party, the notion of gay marriage no longer poses the threat to western civilization that it did about 5 months ago.  Let me think, just what was it that happened 5 months ago?  Oh yeah, I remember, that was along about the time of the last election when the self-described Party of Lincoln got shellacked when it came to garnering votes from just about everyone who isn’t an old white guy.  And just for the record I'm an OWG myself. I just happen to be an OWG who doesn't relate at all to the GOP. 

At the end of February a who’s who of Republicans signed a brief that was submitted to The Supreme Court in support of a suit against California’s Proposition 8 which bans gay marriage.  That’s right Republican leadership actively supporting gay marriage.  I’ve been looking for similar phenomena lately; the abominable snowman, UFOs, or the sun rising in the west. Signatories to the brief include; Meg Whitman, former candidate for Governor of California who ran on a platform opposing gay marriage; former Utah Governor and 2012 presidential candidate Jon Huntsman who also ran on a platform opposing gay marriage; former California Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack who more or less ran on a platform of silence and paid for it in the heavily gay Palm Springs district.  One of the signers, former Ohio Representative Deborah Pryce said, “Like a lot of the country, my views have evolved on this from the first day I set foot in Congress. I think it’s just the right thing, and I think it’s on solid legal footing, too.” 

Pardon my cynicism but it’s interesting to note that many of these folks who’ve suddenly “seen the light” are now former office holders and former candidates who are currently running companies; writing memoirs; on the speaking circuit or taking the grandkids fishing.  In short, they are out of the political game and free to speak, unfettered by the shackles of party politics.

On the heels of the GOP brief, Ohio Senator Rob Portman just last week came out, so to speak, in support of gay marriage.  This after his 21 year old son Will, told Portman that he is gay.  To Portman’s credit, and I’m not offering him a hell of a lot, he is still an office holder, from a battleground state that was barely blue and he no doubt just showed up as a giant blip on the Tea Party radar; his Senatorial seat just became a hot seat. 

In addressing the issue, Portman said, "It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have -- to have a relationship like (his wife) Jane and I have had for over 26 years.” 

To better deal with this news, Portman consulted friends, clergy and The Bible, saying, "The overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible, and certainly the Golden Rule, and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker, that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue," 

Really Senator?  Did that whole Golden Rule thing and Christ’s message of love and compassion just get added to your Bible as a recently published addendum?  Because it’s been in my Bible ever since I got it back when I was in my twenties.  And I don’t think the basic text has changed in the last couple of millennia.  Let me see, the title page on my Bible says that it’s the Saint Joseph’s Edition of The New American Bible.  Maybe Mr. Portman’s is the Saint Ronnie Reagan’s Edition of the Old Politician’s Bible.  Evidently his Bible was missing some chapters, like, oh, all of the ones on the life of Jesus.    

But aside from Senator Portman’s interpretation of The Bible, there’s a greater problem at play.  Rob Portman was a co-sponsor of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.  That was 17 years ago.  For 17 years the policy of the land has been the exclusion of gay people from the rights of marriage.  For 17 years and more, Portman’s Biblical, moral and most importantly, legal view saw no issue with exclusion.  For 17 years Portman and his cohorts had no problem with the denial of civil rights.  For 17 years Portman was convinced that gays getting married somehow threatened the sanctity of marriage but he managed to keep mum when it came to the growing lines at divorce courts or the public marital travesties like a TV game show, The Bachelor, in which the prize is a husband or Kim Kardashian’s 72 day joke of a marriage.  For 17 years this sanctimonious crowd didn’t care a fig about dads and moms who love their own children and just want to see them have the same opportunities they enjoy.  To Portman there was something less than human about gays.  And then Will Portman came out and all of that changed.  Gays lost their fangs, their perverse behavior and their threat to the moral fabric of society.  They weren’t recruiters anymore, trolling in restrooms and parks to “convert” unsuspecting boys.  Suddenly they became regular people just like the ones he conducts business with every day.  It all just changed; just like that. 

And Portman isn’t alone.  He’s simply the most recent in a long line of politicians who signed on to the Defense of Marriage Act and then reconsidered, and this includes a list of Democrats; Tom Daschle, Bill Bradley, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Herb Kohl, Carl Levin, Harry Reid and Bill Clinton.  Even current President Barack Obama who repudiated the DOMA in 2011 was careful to say that he favored civil unions. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  These words from The Declaration of Independence subsequently reinforced in The Constitution are not matters of political convenience or even subject to the vote of the people.  They are, as the document states, self-evident truths that politicians are supposed to embrace regardless of any political baggage that they might hold.  I suppose I’m just an old ignorant bastard but I don’t understand how recognizing equal rights is a matter of evolution as Deborah Pryce stated.  They are what they were with the creation, as the writers put it, and so did not require any evolution.  But isn't this how it's been throughout our history?  It seems a minority has to go through a familiar painful drill because our society and our leadership develops amnesia about the painful drill of the previous minority and the words of the founding documents. 

Inclusion is the new political buzzword; it’s the flavor of the month.  In party politics it’s as popular as the latest Iphone or Michael Jordan sneakers.  It’s as if Doctor Oz himself had announced that everyone needs a daily dose of inclusion.  Inclusion is the new political wonder drug.  

In the final analysis this is all a good thing.  It’s just how things arrived at this point that’s troubling.  The political parties are embracing gay marriage and inclusion in general because the polls and the last election say that this is where the votes are going to trend.  Yes I know, this is going to sound very naïve and Pollyannaish, but when it comes to something basic like equal rights our government leaders are supposed to be setting the trend not following it.

As for Portman, he, like Dick Cheney some years back, arrived by a different route than that of political convenience.  They actually had a face to put on the issue.  They were faces that Portman and Cheney loved; those of their gay children.  Prior to that it was just an issue; no faces, no hurt feelings, no withheld rights, no denial of the pursuit of happiness.

But there are faces.  One is Edith Windsor, whose suit against the DOMA will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.  She and her partner Thea Spyer were together for over 40 years and married for 21 months before Spyer died of Multiple Sclerosis.  When Spyer died, Windsor was handed a $363,000 federal estate tax bill because as a same-sex couple they were not eligible for the unlimited marital deduction. 

A hypothetical New York Times analysis found that over a lifetime a gay couple would pay best case $41,196 more than a similar heterosexual couple and worst case $467,562.  And this is only the dollars and cents aspect and says nothing of the human aspect.  Edith Windsor described it poetically, "The fact is, marriage is this magic thing.  I mean forget all the financial stuff — marriage ... symbolizes commitment and love like nothing else in the world.  And it's known all over the world. I mean, wherever you go, if you're married, that means something to people, and it meant a difference in feeling the next day."

What do all of these politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, tell these people who were emotionally and financially screwed by federal policy for 17 years?  Yeah, I know, they'll say nothing and be proud of their new "generosity."