A Moderate's Take on Occupy Wall Street's Eviction

Being a moderate is not refusing to take a side. It is having a mind open to both sides of an argument, willing to listen and sensitive to perspectives. It also means willing to call out sloppy and foolish thinking when it rears its head. The eviction of Occupy Wall Street from Zucotti Park is a good example of this kind of thing. Liberals see it as black, Conservatives see it as white. The truth in in between.

The Case Against the Protesters

On the one hand, the comments by protesters show their complete loss of context. They criticized police for "destroying my home", for "exercising authority I do not recognize", and "evicting people without due process". A park is NOT a home. You don't own it by squatting there. And the authority of the NYPD over a NY park is not in question. It was right to clean out and clean up the park. The violence and health risks in the camp needed to be addressed, and the NYC authorities have shown remarkable restraint up until now.

The Case For the Protesters

On the other hand, the protesters are exercising their rights of free speech, free assembly, and the vast majority were peaceful. So, they have a point when they object to being forcibly removed AND not allowed to return. While we are annoyed and bored with the whole thing, we can't deny them these rights. At the very least, we must ensure they have somewhere else to gather (although not necessarily to encamp). Remember, the whole point of free assembly and peaceful protest is to allow an airing of ideas that are contrary to the establishment without requiring violence. The annoyance that we feel is the weapon they have to draw our attention to what they perceive as great evils. If we deny them this outlet, their only alternatives will be to tolerate evil or fight it violently (i.e. with riots).

Ignore or deride Occupy Wall Street (or the Tea Party for that matter) at your own risk. Better to engage them in dialogue... if they are willing.

Moderation is never easy

Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage

One issue which was already red-hot in 2008 - and is sure to get even more explosive with a Democratic majority at the Federal level in 2009 - is Same-Sex Marriage. While most advocates would call 2008 a bad year, because of the loss in California, the fact is that significant progress was made toward remaking the political landscape in favor of legal recognition of same-sex unions. More state courts have mandated recognition, there is a greater awareness of the challenges faced by same-sex couples, and the opposition is growing tired of the fight.

Personally, I have opposed the recognition of same-sex unions as "marriage" for some time, but have been sympathetic to the problems of loving couples without the protection of "marriage." I was saddened when same-sex partners had no rights to information about their loved ones who may have been hurt or killed in the attacks on 9/11/01. I was angered by stories about same-sex couples crossing state lines and suddenly losing medical coverage or inheritance rights that they depended on.

For a while, I pushed the idea of a "next of kin" rights package, which would allow the designation of an arbitrary person for hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. rights. But no one seemed interested in following that particular idea set. My impression is that advocates want nothing less than the full social and civil recognition implied by the word "marriage", and opponents don't want to offer any compromise. President-Elect Barack Obama is on record as supporting "civil unions" but opposing "marriage for same-sex couples."

What I wonder at this point is whether we have moved beyond the area where compromise is possible? The logic compromise is "civil unions", where traditional couples keep the name "marriage" and same-sex couples do not, but where the word is equivalent from a legal standpoint. But this moderate course more and more is anathema to both sides, because the wrestling has ceased to be over the rights and conditions of the couples and has become about the social acceptance and normalization of same-same lifestyles.

What do Mod-Bloggers think? Is there still a reasonable middle road here, or are we heading toward an abortion-style reckoning where a winner-takes-all solution is imposed from above?