Thinking About "Gay Marriage"
Bill Long 8/21/08
A Political and Linguistic Approach
I spent some time this morning talking with an old friend about this issue, an issue that, because of his position, is increasingly taking more of his energy and time. He wanted to know how I approached the "gay marriage" issue. Here is the gist of what I told him:
Getting Started
In the last few years the American air waves have been filled with people speaking, haranguing and otherwise weighing in on the issue of the "rightness" of "gay/same se marriage." The debate, if it can be called that, involves high emotional stakes and implicates what has historically been one of the "sacred" institutions of human society: marriage. Because religious institutions have been the traditional custodian of marriage, they have and will have increasingly volatile discussions as they consider whether various forms of "gay unions" are to receive their blessing. The purpose of this essay is to frame the issue in the light of the political and linguistic realities swirling about the atmosphere of the "gay marriage" debate. Much more could be said; let me say a little here.
The Politics of the Issue
My major political point is that the issue has been stolen from those who genuinely are undecided by a "vocal 20%" on either end of the political spectrum. Let me illustrate this through a different issue about which I know something: capital punishment. There will always be about 25% of the electorate which is opposed to capital punishment and about 35% that supports it (numbers differ from state to state). The "debate" over capital punishment is often framed by those in one of the two camps, but the purpose of the "framing" is to try to get the "undecided" 40% to make a decision. But the 40% are generally pretty resistant to harangues from both side; they seek an argument that "makes sense" for them before making a decision on the issue. Many of them aren't really that concerned about the issue, but most will engage in a discussion if they know that they won't be button-holed by people from either end and that they won't be judged if they express thoughts that are indelicately formed or still "in process." Yet, these 40% hold the key to the "answer" or the societal direction. Thus, a method must be discovered to allow them to voice their concerns as well as to come to a decision on the issue.
The same holds true on the debate over "gay marriage" (I will talk about the words below). You have a vocal anti-movement and a vocal pro-movement, both of which have a sizable block of people supporting them. I would say that the "pro-side" probably has support from about 25% of the electorate, while the "anti-side" has a larger chunk. But that still leaves a big group of people who have not made a decision. To date, in the churches, for example, the debate has been dominated by the most vocal people: those who just hate the idea of "gay marriage" or those who think that this should be the evolving direction of our society. But the vast number "in the middle," who haven't decided about the issue because of a number of reasons, would like a safe environment in which to talk about "gay marriage." A safe environment is one in which there are no repercussions for what is said and where heartfelt concerns and questions can be brought up.
The key today on the "gay marriage" issue is to create forums in which those 35-50% of "undecideds" are the ones "in power," i.e, where their concerns are highlighted and respected. Some will say, "It makes no difference because everyone has made up his/her mind!" but people who talk this way are probably in one of the two groups that have already made decisions and are generally afraid about losing the control of the debate. Thus, there is a strong need to give the power in the debate to those "in the middle": to those who believe that through conversation and education you actually can learn things and come to a more satisfying position. The need, then, is to create discussions where these "undecideds" are the ones who "control" the discussion. Both sides of people who are "locked in" in their positions may object, but this is the way to go. That, in a nutshell, is the power issue.
The Language Issue
So, the issue of gay marriage must be undertaken in the context of non-judgmental discussion, led by people who themselves are dedicated more to the process than to either side in the debate. But, what do you talk about once you get people in a room? The major realization here is that the principal focus of early discussions will be on the language of "gay marriage" and what we mean by various linguistic formulations. For example, the question must be faced regarding what is meant by marriage. Even such a respected authority as the Oxford English Dictionary gives its first definition of marriage as, "the condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other." But then, right before you jump up and down and say, "that solves it!," the following line appears: "The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex." That is, linguistically the OED sees the issue as "open."
This ought to help us get our discussion going. How, in connection to the realities of life in 2008, would each discussion group member define marriage? Is the term necessary or helpful? Does one have a very narrow definition (joining of people in a formal church or judicially-sanctioned ceremony where possiblity of procreation is in view) or a broader definition (any joining of people where life-time or long-term commitment is articulated in a solemn, legally-recognized context)? Since it has "always been" a union of a man and a woman, does that mean it must be that way? What is, in fact, the essence or the basic characteristic(s) of a marriage? Are divorced people given as much "room at the table" to talk about their understanding of marriage or are only those who have been in one marriage for a long time given the privilege of speaking?
The purpose of these kinds of questions is to try to figure out what value people attach to various terms and, especially, how broadly one should view the notion of a marriage. Must it be betwen a male and a female? If so, why so? If not, why not? Ought we to have a series of other terms to indicate various possible degrees of intimacy between people, such as a "marriage" and "covenant union," none of which are gender-based?
Conclusion
The goal of the discussion on language will be to discover how each one of the participants is learning to talk about the issue. We become empowered if we have language that 'fits us' in speaking about important things. In order to feel "in charge" of our lives, we need our own language to speak about how law touches our lives, our medical/health condition and the important issues and relationships of our lives. The issue of "gay marriage" is no different. People in general desire ways to speak intelligently and self-persuasively about the issue. My proposal offers that opportunity. It generally follows that when people feel comfortable speaking about an issue they will be more useful for themselves and others as the issue is faced down the road. My proposal provides that basic opportunity for "learning a language" regarding this important issue.
It is impossible to learn a foreign language without making tons of mistakes in speaking. Certainly that will be the case here. That is why one should have a protected environment in which to discuss. So, let's take the issue away from those on either side who want to scream us into submission. Let's discuss and listen to each other. Maybe we will all learn something..
3726
|