After an extended hiatus I'm back writing about politics again. According to the internet I have one followers so, to those disappointed masses, fear not. I'm back.
I have been absorbing a bunch of post election breakdown and will eventually post about some of my research and some of the other cool things i've encountered relative to that. First I want to brainstorm about Gay Marriage. I don't think I know that many folks that think it's a bad idea. However, it has been on the ballot in 30 states and 30 states have rejected it. It thus seems obvious that we need new strategies for talking about it.
This is a great interview between Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart.
I think it helps show how logically indefensible the anti-gay marriage position is. I also wonder if we just need more of this or if the rational arguments on the subject are not likely to succeed. Dr. Rowland teaches his undergraduate students that a logical argument is not likely to succeed if a: people have already taken their position and b: there is no new information or c: if it is a value issue d: it is a highly complex issue. However, he argus that over time the logical position tends to win out. Do we just need more time? Do we have any new information? If not, we may need new strategies. My suspicion is that we do need new strategies and starting with happy California couples who's marriages were voided is not a bad idea. We should share these stories, and see if we can't get others to realize that their position on the definition of marriage is really hurtful to some.
Here is another interesting argument that is all over the internet these days:
It certainly plays with form. It uses celebrities and appeals to reason as well as self interest. I wonder if it isn't just a new packaging of the old strategies though. I suspect we need to find other ways to articulate our positions. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm happy to see that I am now able to at least comment on your blog now. I am happy to see that you have picked gay marriage as a topic, not that I have any personal interest in the matter. I suppose my biggest issue with Prop 8 was the interference of church in a state election. I believe that if a church chooses to fund a political campaign, they should then expect to be taxed. What are your thoughts on this? U. Eric
I think you're absolutely right that the issue needs to be reframed. I think that paradoxically, a lot of progress was made in the prop 8 debate. The big anti-ssm interest groups ceded the civil union ground; now the moderate position is civil unions and almost no one can tenably deny that gay couples should receive legal protection of some sort. I'm not suggesting that as an end point, but if you think of it in terms of a larger strategy like the NAACP's pre-Brown strategy, it makes sense. Marshall and other attorneys challenged unequal facilities over and over before finally making the push that separate was not equal. A lot of groundwork has to be laid here--the center of the debate has to shift; people's perceptions of gay couples have to change; the naysayer's arguments have to be given some time to fail. It's hard to imagine, but it's only been 5 years since Lawrence. I would have been considered a criminal here in Utah 6 years ago. We've come a long way, and we have a long way to go politically. But I think that setting up a groundwork on rights in the heartland with a push for marriage on the coasts is the best way to approach the issue.
P.S. my further thoughts on the subject are here. Hope everything's going well, Ben.
I actually think the old strategies are working. Maybe it's one more failure of our education system that so many do not recognize a civil rights movement when they are right in the midst of one so that the whole process has to be gone through all over again. I watch trad and nontrad students alike diligently taking notes in history class to pass a test and completely miss the connections and implications. Maybe that is why we can't, having done this so many times before, just push ff.
Prejudices are almost always based solely in fear. I think there are alot of people that still think homosexuality is scary, probably not for the same reasons they did in the 80's, but for others. We've addressed and debunked alot of those initial fears, but I think we still have a ways to go.
Alot of the ads that played on television here in California leading up to the election focused on teaching gay marriage to children, specifically kindergartners. The idea of corrupting our innocent children in such a way was supposed to send chills down your spine.
Another fear was that church officials could go to jail if they refused to marry a gay couple which was also not true.
Despite the attempts of the No on 8 campaign to ease these fears, it didn't work.
I think part of a new strategy should involve listening carefully to the opposition and finding out what their still afraid of. Then good logical arguments can be framed to address these fears and ease their minds.
After the election there were big protests in California that got alot of media coverage. A poll was taken that said a certain percentage of people who voted yes on 8 would vote no now, if they could change their vote. So I think you're right. I think showing people how hurtful their position is, will help, but we also need to do a better job of addressing their fears.
I was actually impressed with the oppositions arguments. They came with a new spin. (at least to me) They wouldn't have been able to show ads saying homosexuality was perverse, etc. which is what they're really saying anyway because that would be too obvious. Using a parent's fear of not being able to protect their child is pretty low, but I have to admit, it was good. After all....it worked.
Post a Comment