In September 1993, I was invited to attend the signing of the Oslo Accords, a treaty between the government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO. It was at the White House and President Bill Clinton presided over the ceremony. The Jews and Palestinians had for centuries fought over land they both occupied, and both viewed as holy, but for different reasons. Finally, they had agreed to a first step toward peace.
At the signing, Israeli Prime Minister Rabin spoke deliberately and soberly: “We are soldiers who have returned from battle stained with blood,” he said. “We who have fought against you, the Palestinians, we say to you today, in a loud and clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough!” Then, dressed in his familiar Arab head scarf, Chairman Arafat spoke in Arabic. He referenced the hopefulness of people on both sides that this conflict would end and concluded by saying, “It is time to give peace a chance.”
There was little trust between these two rival nations and President Clinton knew these two leaders would be criticized by the political extremes on both sides. He called their move toward peace a “brave gamble.”
While in a very different context, the words “brave gamble” came to mind again last week as I watched Rep. Chris Stewart and a half-dozen of his colleagues propose the Fairness for All Act to protect the both the rights of people who are LGBT and religious freedom. It is a certainty that their effort will be criticized by the extreme factions on both sides of the debate, but this legislation is not only wise — it is the “brave gamble” required to find a solution to a complicated and emotionally charged issue.
The ongoing debate between LGBT advocates and those who defend religious freedom is too often conducted in the same binary fashion as other intractable value-based disputes. LGBT-rights advocates argue that religious freedom is simply an excuse to discriminate against LGBT people. At the extreme, those who defend religious freedom declare that sexual identity deserves no legal protection whereas the exercise of religion deserves maximal protection.
All or nothing advocacy at the extremes is common in our democracy. Pick any set of controversial issues related to what we value, protect or prioritize and this proves to be true. For example, in the immigration debate, federal spending and even matters related to climate change, the discussion starts at ideological extremes. In time, the messy, contentious and sometimes inefficient process we know and love as democracy finds a shared space that accommodates diverse opinions and needs.
As Americans, we have learned to deal with these situations. This is one of the core characteristics of America. We find workable solutions to accommodate people of diverse backgrounds, beliefs and needs. Had we not succeeded, the United States would no longer exist. Indeed, that is the unique genius of America. Much of the solution to these tensions lies in the American notion of pluralism.
Fundamental disagreements can exist among intelligent, informed people of good will. Whether the issue involves gender, race or finding the balance between LGBT rights and religious freedom, America needs an approach that to the maximum extent possible allows space for all people to live according to their fundamental beliefs and needs. America needs an approach that finds the shared spaces, resolving conflicts that may arise with win-win solutions that are not dependent on demands for ideological purity. Rep, Stewart’s Fairness for All Act balances the competing values and deserves the support of all Americans.
Michael O. Leavitt is a former governor of Utah. He has also served in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services.