What a difference a border makes (Indian Summer)

Sleepily strolling through Steve Clemmons' website this evening, I happened upon this speech in defense of gay marriage by Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. The philosophical parts:

We will be influenced by our faith but we also have an obligation to take the widest perspective -- to recognize that one of the great strengths of Canada is its respect for the rights of each and every individual, to understand that we must not shrink from the need to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of Canadians in an evolving society.

....

The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.

We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact.

Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to "civil union." This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.

....

Put simply, we must always remember that "separate but equal" is not equal.

Contrast this with Bush's February 24, 2004 call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages (which he has conveniently backed away from, now that he no longer has to buy votes with the view):

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.

.....

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.

I think a student of political science would be hard pressed to engage in a more apt reductionist framing of the differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals, generally speaking, search for the equality they seek in spite of tradition (indeed, they tend to shy away from its wisdoms) whereas conservatives are willing to sell the farm on equality to preserve their sense of tradition.

Both are subjective, allowing the terms of debate in the equality vs. tradition war to shift. But, at the same time, both are noble goals to achieve - just not at the expense of the other.