I offer a yin-and-yang of topics on this ESWoW blog: love and dictators Over the past couple of weeks much of my attention has been split between following the remarkable events unfolding in the Middle East and working to advance marriage equality here in Maryland.  Both issues have induced in me a sense of rising idealism. I find myself framing them in terms of inevitable and joyous movement toward a better world. And yet, there is so much ugliness and pragmatic reality to sort through.

First, let's start with dictators.  Now on the surface they are not generally the sort of individuals moderate Americans like myself support I respect freedom and democracy, condemn authoritarian rule, and cheer on the common people marching through Cairo.  It is, however, disconcerting to discover how ignorant I am about Egypt.  I did not realize how oppressive Mubarak’s rule – made possible in small part to my tax dollars - had been over the past 30 years I did not know, for example, that he had extended Egypt’s "state of emergency" which had been in effect virtually continuously since the 1950’s.  This status allowed for the suspension of constitutional rights and gave the government the legal right to censor and to detain political prisoners without trial.  In recent years estimates placed the number of such prisoners as high as 30,000.  How convenient it was for me to be blithely unaware of my complicity in such oppression until the masses began marching allowing me to cheer them on.

Even more than my own ignorance, what was more depressing was how the United States was not only responsible for propping up Mubarak’s regime, but how it continues to support dictatorships around the globe.  Blogger Joshua Holland offered ups a short list of dictators we currently support, including Cameroon’s Paul Biya (condemned by Amnesty International for unlawful executions and imprisonment of journalists), Gurbanguly Berdymuhammedov of Turkmenistan (who Human Rights Watch says heads a government that "remains one of the most repressive and authoritarian in the world"), and, of course, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, a theocratic Islamic state that does "horrible things to its citizens."  My tax dollars buy them weapons and my diplomatic leaders throw them praise.  And if these examples aren’t enough for you, take a peek at what the U. S. does to contribute to oppression in Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Uzbekistan, and Ethiopia.  Holland points out that our nation supports "a grand collection of bastards, yes. But remember: they're our bastards!"

Obviously the main pragmatic argument against my do-gooder carping is that if we didn’t support these dictators worse things would happen.  Certainly that was the dominating paradigm during the cold war when the specter of Soviet militarism convinced our nation to do horrible things to people, including our own citizens.  And now, with the war on terror in full – and presumably continuous – motion, such a dynamic is easy to maintain.

Is it simply naive to entertain the notion that the best way to combat external threats – whether from Marxists or religious holy warriors – is to nurture openness, freedom, and compassion?  Is it silly to embrace the foreign policy option recommending that we "make more friends?" Perhaps.  But the wave of protests taking place in the Middle East at least should remind us to look more critically at U. S. support for cruel despots in the name of some over-arching strategy.  Perhaps the ends to not only not justify our means, but maybe our means will not bring the ends we desire. Maybe the most pragmatic approach is more fully to live by our values.

Closer to home, I was called naïve by an opponent of Maryland State Senate Bill 116, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act.   Strategically and accurately named, this act would change Maryland’s legal definition to include same sex couples.  It would reemphasize the right of religious institutions to bless or not bless the union of couples as they see fit, and would inevitably increase the number of married people in Maryland.  But Dan – as he introduced himself to me stiffly - would have none of it. As a defender of marriage fighting against people who want to get married, he explained to me how the social structure would crumble if homosexuals could get married.  

For liberals living in liberal enclaves, it is all too easy to mock opponents of marriage equality, especially after sitting through testimony from both sides of the argument.  I had profound empathy for the couples, old and young, black and white, who shared stories of love and commitment.  I was stirred by the words of children raised by same-sex partners urging legislators to let them celebrate their family with through a long-overdue and legally binding marriage ceremony.  

And while there are thoughtful individuals – maybe some of you – who have concerns that marriage equality is the wrong way to go, few of them signed up to testify against Senate Bill 116.  Instead some of the most intolerant, bigoted individuals saw this as their time in the sun.  Their words reminded me of Martin Luther King Jr.’s strategy of letting the ugly pus of racism come to the healing light of day despite how difficult it is to view.  I won’t share much of the ugliness of the testimony, but it was tough to take the insulting characterization of homosexuality as the equivalent of bestiality preached from the podium with a self-assured smirk.

I was relieved to read in the Washington Post metro section this morning that for at least one Senator previously resisting the bill, he switched to supporting it due to the vicious words of those condemning homosexuality.  Sen. James Brochin – who opposed the bill when it was introduced - was repulsed by the testimony of some same-sex marriage opponents that he found "…appalling and disgusting."  He continued, "I just heard hate and venom coming out of that hearing." The ugliness of the pus was exposed, and the social wound of homophobia continues slowly to heal.  I have to admit I took pleasure in the fact that the testimony of those standing in the way of equal rights might prove their legislative downfall.   It also feels good "standing on the side of love."

It feels so good to get caught up in a movement of light over darkness, whether regarding marriage equality or the overthrow of dictators.  But the reality is that my own role is never so black and white.  Both the pragmatic complexities of the U. S. foreign policy, and my own complicit ignorance of our history, tempers my joy of "being on the winning side."  How long had I not worked to support marriage equality?  Sure I supported it…in principle.  But it took the work of hundreds of activists to get close enough to victory for me to jump in.  My four trips to Annapolis this month were small contributions late in the game.  Will I be able to sustain my efforts should marriage equality be passed?  Will I turn greater attention to transgender individuals who often feel left behind by traditional gay rights activism?  And will I have the patience to figure out how to be an active and engaged citizen of a nation that – for better or worse – navigates foreign policy through numerous compromises of our best ideals?  

As an Ethical Culturist, reaching out to the Ethical Culture community for support, I hope so.