Trying to divine what the government is thinking in relation to any policy position is difficult, however I have found it next to impossible regarding this proposed Civil partnerships legislation. Listening to the Green party Equality spokesperson Ciaran Cuffe on Morning Ireland on 1st November , he seemed to intone that there was one almighty fight between the Green Party and Brian Lenihan – Minister for Justice about the scope of the legislation, with the Green party seeming to have come out the losers of this fight. Among the comments made by Cuffe are that the government is “not in a position to deliver on full recognition” and it will be a “step in the right direction”, none of which fills me with eager anticipation for the legislation promised in March (Kieran Rose of the Gay, Lesbian Equality Network stated on the same programme that the measures will “falls far short of equality”). The one possible bright spot is that there is a period of over 5 months to organise an effective campaign to bring pressure to bear and deliver full and equal Civil Partnership.

Below is a letter I wrote to the Irish Times yesterday (1st November 2007) outlining one of my concerns about how this legislation may develop:

"Dear Madam, I very much welcome the commitment of the Government given in the Dáíl on 31st October 2007 by the Minister for Justice to "provide for the registration of civil partnerships of same sex couples".  This legislation has been promised many many times during the lifetime of this government and though it seems they are able to rush through Criminal Justice Bills in a matter of a month while for a period of over 6 years it seemed unable to find time for this Programme for Government promise, the commitment is welcome nonetheless.

However, I am still mystified at why the Government does not simply accept the Labour party proposal, supported by all parties except those in government, which seeks to implement the very successful Civil Partnerships approach from the U.K. The comments of the Minister for Justice worry me in that he states that the forthcoming legislation "will also provide protection for other relationships which lie outside marriage but which may be heterosexual or same sex." The only interpretation I can put on this is that the Minister is proposing to include relationships of people who are not currently excluded from marriage. If this is so, and the Minister wishes to implement tax-breaks for co-habitees in non-conjugal relationships such as brothers and sisters then he should do that, but separately from any Civil Partnership legislation. His priority should be equality before the law for gay people, who are the only sector of society denied the privilege of marriage. I do not wish to have my loving, sacred and permanent Civil Partnership be compared to that of a non-conjugal couple such as cohabiting family members who enter into the same Partnership for transient and selfish financial purposes. It is my belief that the Minister is proposing something quite similar to what the Catholic clergy proposed some years ago (*See below). Though it is admirable that he would attempt to integrate the views of all sections of society, when a core issue of equality for a large section of our society is at stake, it is imperative that it be addressed fully and without compromise.

I believe the Minister should concentrate on one core objective – equality for same-sex couples through the implementation of the what the Government's own Colley report called for and what the Programme for Government encourages, that is "Civil Partnerships at the earliest possible date in the lifetime of the Government", otherwise the inequality and exclusion of a large section of our society will continue.

Yours,David Garrahy"

My concerns were compounded by the comments of Dr. Manseragh, reported in the Irish Times on 1st November when it was reported "In the case of civil partnership, said Dr Mansergh, there should be no necessity for there to be a physical relationship"...I have a fear that a whitewash will be served up, comprising some sort of tax scheme for siblings, family members and other random people which will be backed by the Catholic church and will fall well short of equality. As I siad in a previous letter published in the Irish Times on 6th March 2007 - "The problems these two sets of people face are very different and the solutions should also be different." Of course, if the government successfully legislates in this area, any reform of that system would be 10 -15 years away, potentially leaving and unequal system in place for the near future. That settles it - I'm going to Canada!

* Clarification on 12th November 2007 - When I mentioned the Catholic clergy position, this is based on comments from Archbishop Diarmuid Martin as reported by David Quinn then of the Irish Indepndent (he is now freelance having edited the Irish Catholic and setting up the Iona Institute earlier this year) - hear comments at  this link

A weak decentralised State and society coupled with a strong patriotism is the reason why the U.S. will not cede her place as the world's most powerful nation anytime soon.

 Citizens of the U.S. often call Europeans lazy...I saw this as an uneducated slur until I fully appreciated the U.S. social system and society which encourages diversity in society and freedom of the individual to reach their fullest potential, which I believe is achieved by not providing the support or fallback that many Europeans feel they have in their society or the State. This is something I've already covered below - in believing that the sense of independence and direction that individual U.S. citizens possess is a result of the great freedom they have to develop their own identity, given that freedom and liberty can as much be smothered by an overprotective State as by a tyrannical right-denying regime.

In the U.S. divengent and contradictory viewpoints and lifestyles exist side-by-side and in many ways in harmony. Communities and groups see that falling back on the State for support, either politically or socially is not an option..the State will not provide, it is up to the individual to make their way.  People don't rely on social validation on some abstract notion of Americanness, as Ambassador John Bruton said on a very interesting podcast about his time in the U.S., they are less  prone to Group-think. Instead they construct their own identity through reaching out to other people, communities or family to define them. This is so prevalent in so many ways from how individuals as Alumni give millions to fund their former Universities, to why the stronger lobby groups e.g. the NRA or the Human Rights Campaign have mass membership as an intrical part of their lobbying effort, to the continued strength of religious observance which defies the trend of gradual decline in religion in each and every developed country. When there is no strong State to fall back upon, it is no wonder they hold close what is dear.

That is paradoxically why I found the U.S. to be one of the friendlyist places I had been.  In creating your identity it is not as easy to rely on abstract notions such as nationality and the State to justify yourself. You must create your own multifaceted identity, based on job, sex, belief, personality etc. Not engaging with fellow citizens, relying on the State or nationality or an abstract notion of society to validate you is not an option, as I'm sure if you ask any homeless person in the U.S. - no man is an island, but it'd be much easier to be an island there. This was reflected somewhat for me by the face that very few people were listening to Ipods (which I believe sends out a signal, I do not want anyone to interrupt me)  in the street and in general more took the time to acknowledge you. They were also more flirty, which I think cannot be but a good thing!

The reason, I feel that this diversity brings about strength is that U.S. citizens can feel much more in charge of their destiny through their group or identity than they can with an abstract State, and will therefore work harder, be more creative and if necessary fight in order to retain or develop this identity. As Ambassador Bruton also said U.S. citizens are much more innovative and will not see some problems as simply intractible. Instead as he points out, they are much more dogged in reaching solutions to problems that Eurpeans might simply see as unresolvable. Is this why U.S. citizens view Europeans as lazy? Becuase for them having one's own identity, that seperates you from those around you is vital for strength of character as they feel they are achieving for a greater purpose or goal while for Europeans all too often we can mush up our identities and values to form a kind of consensus which nobody is happy with but each suffers as we feel we have no control.

But will this diversity of conflicting identities ultimately lead to conflict? Perhaps, and you could say that has happened already with the black community, which defines itself by a strong alternative culture and community.  However the reason I believe this will not happen is the strong patriotism of the U.S. citizen who opts into a system based on liberty that allows them to be different and follow their own path. In Europe some group buring a National flag would be seen as more of a party trick than heracy. However, in the U.S., the thought that one grouping might opt out of their carefully constructed compact triggers fears of the unleashing of the energy of that group against what is a fragile State. Perhaps that is why a Civil War was fought, while if a similar break happened in the European Union over a policy issue, the temptation would be to allow the schism.

Whatever, the future of the world, the U.S will lead - its strength is in constatly reaching for new paradigms, not giving up when confronted by obstacles and in citizens utilising the control they feel they have over their destiny. In sum the U.S. is strong not because it is united or divided, but beacuse it is united in its dividedness.

More photos uploaded - including some of me dancing - parental advisory.. http://www.flickr.com/photos/davygee/

Tomorrow I head home, so what are my feelings? Well a great sense of satisfaction that I have gained an huge amount of ideas both about polititics and society. I have gained a great respect for the value of the individual that people have here in the U.S. which leads to great innovation and inventiveness at all levels of society. I read that liberty is centred  in the U.S. Constitution and the statue atop Capitol Hill is that of liberty. Setting free the talents and abilities of 350 million people is probably what makes the U.S. great.

Reflecting on what I've experienced over the last two weeks - one overriding feeling that I have come away with had been a deep respect for the seriousness with which citizens of the U.S. take their political system. There is very little self-deprecation or joking about the system here, it's all very serious and approached with a certain reverance. There's no disillusioned voter or partisan critic like the one you'll meet here. I feel it reflects the seriousness with which citizens in the U.S. take their lives. Government is seen as intrusive when it has any limiting effect on their lives. This seems to be seen as acceptable when it produces certain common goods - eg. defense but toleration of any other "intrusion" seems limited.

I feel in Europe we take a more common interest view - that if we all band toether and create something that's better than we created seperately, then that's a good. For U.S. citizens, that's seen as being one step away from tyranny. It's amazing the fear that still pervades about this even though the freedoms that are guaranteed by their Constitution have been in existance for over 200 years. Maybe when you're ever on the look-out for threats to your liberty, you take your political system that bit more seriously. In this case, maybe Europeans have to ask oursleves - are we that bit lazier about defending out interests? Is the reason that no Constitution in Europe has lasted half as long as the U.S. one because we don't protect our liberties each and every day, and instead lazily expect the State to fill in where we fail? Whether it's true or not, I can see why the U.S. system has lasted and withstood emergencies and crises, a political system needs not only people who engage wihtin it, it needs not just an active opposition opposing and proposing policies, perhaps it needs an active citizenry constatnly questioning the need for government in the first place. Only then will it be responsive, appropriate and just.

The National Organisaiton for Women was the last organisaiton we visited today and it was probably the best. So much belief, vigor and energy was evident in the pursuit of their beliefs. Comparing it to the Human Rights Campaign who campaign for Gay/Lesbian and bisexual rights, whom we had met the previous day the comparison was clear. THe Human Rights Campaign freely admitted they had made sacrifices of some groups, issues in the pursuit of their agenda...for example they stated that studies had shown that Gay men were more prone to homelessness than straight men, but this was not an issue they pursued. This was shown very clearly in the pursit of what they called here the ENDA (Equal Non-Discrimination Act) through Congress. The Democrats felt they could not pass the bill if it included Transgendered people, a line the HRC reluctantly agreed with. Therefore an important part of their community was excluded.

The National Organisaiton for Women took pride in standign for a number of issues with which many people would disagree, e.g. Keep Abortion Legal, Gay Marriage for Lesbians, but still sought to attract people with who would agree wiht the majority of their platform. They also took positions on a wide range of topics - educaiton, healthcare etc. Their line was, there's enough poeple who will compromise - it's for us to be the hardliners, they will not endorse any candidate who does not agree with their full programme. The sense of inclusion  and mission that I felt here was infectious...I really felt they believed what they were doing. It was such a contrast to the HRC where I felt a kind of doom and gloom, maybe they had started feeling that after years of exclusion, they had finally gotten inside the system and not being used to power they had made comprimises and suddenly they the bad guysmthey had been fighting all these years...ah to be an outsider..

Wow...today I think I met my hero, Governor Howard Dean - Head of the Democratic National Conference...there we were, heading into the DNC headquarters expecting a usual annodine presentation and along came Howard to say hi! He was a lot slimmer than usual but had the same way about him, he has definately not "sold out"...it's all about the grassroots and building tools to empower citizens. Lastly I also met a neghbour - a woman whose father was from Doolin is the Secretary of the Executive office of the Democratic Party! 

Anyway, must sleep the sleep of virtuous..

Arriving in this place is like a child finally getting to visit the Toy shop she's been long promised - the suspense has been overwhelming and more than anything one wants to do everything now, this minute IMMEDIATELY! But when I finally relaxed I gained a sense of what it is all about....I feel the essence of Washington is that around every corner exists a story - either a monument, a building or indeed as in the case with Arlington, a resing place for thousands of Americans. It's a capital worthy of the name Capital city...the area surrounding the "Mall" is like a reflection of the nation in so many ways, with it's governmental institutions, monuments and commomerations. It is reflected in the reverance that U.S. citizens have for this place. I believe it shows the depth of feeling of people for this nation, perhaps a deeper patriotism than I've felt from any country's citizens  toward their country, that is the ones I've had the priviledge to visit.

Boston, a city where everything seems to be about politics. If you dress a certain way or walk in a confident manner or even what you eat. We were having lunch in Fanuiel Hall, I met this elderly couple from California, the guy talked when he heard my Irish accent and saw I was eating a salad. Eventually after explaining vine leaves to him, we talked about politics as I explained why I was there. We got a very sudden interruption from his previously quiet wife - the liberal bias in the media is overwhelming she told us, media was terrible, newspapers were the worst and Fox news was someway independent. She withdrew and looked defensively around her in case liberal was going to somehow going to invade subcutaneously unbeknownst to her. Her husband made some banal comment to take the edge off her argument, at which point she rose up again, more confident this time and shrugged off his comments, all she knew was that she wasn’t going to be taken in by these liberals, she knew better, she wasn’t going to catch Massachusetts liberal. All discussed she gladly announced that she was going back to California that night. She then withdrew…but sadly glanced at me before she left, knowing that I was lost.

Sleep deprivation would be one thing, if I had not exacerbated the problem by deciding to do the dog on the native beers in the one pub we could find after wandering the streets around out hotel for a good 5 minutes. We saw bakeries that look like pubs, restaurants that look like pubs and bizarrely a church that looked oddly, from the distance like a pub. We had started to believe that the prohibition had been introduced before we finally we did the unmasculine thing and asked a passing stranger who directed us to an appropriate venue. We engaged in all ways with native culture by watching the ball game, and swigging beer. The latter was the more enjoyable for me I must admit.

In any case, here I am - in dread of what I will feel tomorrow morning when I get up (in 6 hours) for our first of 3 briefings from Boston College about American politics. I must have read the Declaration of Independence (which I've never seen much of before) and the U.S. Constitution (which thankfully I had read before I came out) to prepare for the meetings. The first is from
Professor Marc Landy, Assistant Chairperson of Boston College Political Science Department and Faculty Chair of the Irish Institute who will talk about the complexities of American government at its various levels (it is for this we have had to read the Declaration and Constitution - I've decided to plead the fifth if I'm asked any questions!) . After that we meet with Tom Keady who is Vice President of Governmental and community affairs at Boston College who will speak on Presidential politics and the forthcoming Presidential election. This will be fascinating for me as I want to explore not only the personalities of this contest but also the structures - including the increased use of the internet by some campaigns. Lastly, and perhaps most interestingly is the seminar on Religion in American public life by Alan Woulfe - founding director f the Boisi centre for Religion and public life. I've just listened to an article in the recorded version of the Economist about this very subject, and about how the lone democrat in the White House in 2001 - John DiIulio, as White House Director of  Faith-Based and Community Initiatives which handled funding religious institutions to provide certain benefits may be the most cost-efficient way of reducing poverty, and that Democrats and Republicans are coming around to this point of view.

All went well generally today, until the last 2 hours of drinking, flights went fairly predictably - not especially tired but am sure I will be in the morning. Went to a lovely Italian restaurant to get to know the other participants and our hosts a little better. It was very enjoyable, too much perhaps - which is why I will suffer so tomorrow.

Just found out today that we will be visiting the Republican and Democratic Headquarters while we are in Washingon DC. We will also get a chance to meet with the Director of External affairs for the Young Republican national federation.

Lastly, a quote from a book I have just finished and to which I shall be returning later in this blog:

"A little rebellion is a good thing" - Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Joe Trippi (campaign manager for Howard Dead) in 'The revolution will not be televised'.

"God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion...what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that people preserve the spirit of resistance".

In other words, from the father of American democracy himself - STIR IT UP!!