Last week I wrote an article counter the common arguments against gay marriage (in a very tongue-in-cheek manner, I will admit), and ended with a call to arms over the issue of gay marriage, as it pertained to Question 1 on the upcoming Maine election. Needless to say, I’m sure by now most have heard that this referendum passed, and that same-sex marriage is now illegal again in the State of Maine. I for one, am disappointed and disgusted, but this loss raises a valid point which few seem to be willing to address on the national or state level. President Obama addressed it a little bit on the campaign trail, and this sentiment can often be heard in almost all political discussions between friends. How often do you hear people say something similar to “Ugh, how can they be so stupid? I don’t even understand where they’re coming from!”
Now, clearly the “the other side is so dumb” sentiment is dismissive, and unnecessary, but the second portion of this is what I wish to write about. This concept of “I don’t even understand how the other side could reach this conclusion” raises an important point. Part of the premise of our political system is that within a democratic system, the thought processes of the majority will be put into law, but that everyone’s voice will be heard and, at least ideally, considered. However, this seems to be quite the opposite of what is happening. The current political atmosphere seems much more centered around visceral emotional responses to an issue, and I think this is at best unfair and unreasonable.
The United States of America is, to steal a common phrase, a melting pot. That is to say, people from all sorts of ethnic, religious, economic and political backgrounds live in the United States. Allegedly, all of these people have an equal voice in the way political decisions are made. To paraphrase President Obama, the only way to make sure the law is just and fair to everyone is to be able to carry-on a rational, reasoned discussion about the topic. He was talking about this in the context of his personal religion, and how this would affect his decisions as president, but I feel that there’s a larger point to be taken away from this.
Consider the vote on Tuesday in Maine. It is fairly obvious to anyone who watched the campaigns unfold and the discourse leading up to the vote, fear of change seemed to win the day. Now, this is a rather superficial definition of the reason that the Yes on 1 campaign won, and there’s an argument to be made that the vote was religiously motivated, that fear about the societal affect of same-sex marriage, that it was fundamentally wrong for children to be taught that homosexual couples exist, that the sanctity of marriage would be destroyed, or even that homosexuality is too gross, a disease, or even a biblical abomination were the underlying reasons for why the Yes on 1 campaign won. All of these arguments may have some merit, but the consensus of analysts seems to be that superficially, voter turnout on the No on 1 side just wasn’t there, and this was probably because “protection of marriage rights” is much less of an emotional issue than “protecting the institution that has been in place for thousands of years”.
Note the word emotional in the last sentence. This is the crux of the issue. Politics within the United States has turned into a visceral emotional issue. President Obama arguably won on this very campaign, he inspired people by using very emotional mantras, “hope” and “change”.
This is directly the reason religion seems to have such a stronghold on the United States political atmosphere, religion is, for the majority of religious people, a very, very emotional issue. However, emotion is something that is very difficult to convey to others. Have you ever felt something, tried to explain it and given up because they “just wouldn’t understand”? Or consider a political topic that is very emotionally charged, like abortion. Much of the discourse over abortion centers around the “abortion is murder” argument. Now, whether you’re for or against abortion, I think you would have to look long and hard to find someone who has no opinion about abortion. Even those that one may encounter that say “I don’t know much about the issue” usually finish with “but I feel X way about it”. Again, not the use of the word “feel”.
As President Obama said (albeit not directly about political discourse in the United States), the only way to ensure that everyone feels like they are being represented is to make the discourse founded in intellectual, reasoned discussion. One is allowed to feel however one wants on a subject, but the argument presented ought to be as devoid of emotion as possible, or it’s hard to find a common ground.
To use the gay marriage referendum in Maine again, much of the discourse from the Yes on 1 campaign was very emotionally charged. The No on 1 campaign was accused of “redefining marriage” (arguably a fairly personal attack on those married couples in the State of Maine). While the No on 1 campaign presented a very well thought out, intellectual argument about how same-sex marriage wasn’t different from straight marriage, how these are just people that deserve equal rights, how the other states that have legalized gay marriage aren’t suffering from any societal degeneration, and even how same-sex marriage does not affect the economy (and in some cases boosts the economy) of the states that have legalized it. Obviously, these arguments failed against what seemed to be a very simple, consistent, emotional message.
It’s clear that many political issues are emotionally charged (abortion, gay marriage, immigration, insert-your-topic-of-choice-here), but choosing to react to emotions first, and try and justify your emotions second is the wrong way to go about having a debate that will sufficiently satisfy every party. Often times emotional issues cause people to zealously stake out a position, and subsequently not budge.
In order to move this country forward we, as a whole, must start forcing political discourse to be entirely grounded in an intellectually supported way. Once this expectation has been laid down, the “abortion is murder” argument will need to be supported by a working definition of murder, why abortion falls under this category, why a fetuses life is more important than that of the mother, and a plethora of other questions. The same-sex marriage debate will no longer be able to use “fundamental redefinition of marriage” as a mantra without providing a definition of marriage, and evidence to support that this definition really has never changed throughout the course of history. The healthcare reform debate will have to actually support that “death panels” will occur, providing proper citation directly from the bill.
Fearmongering, hatred, and prejudice will no longer be valid political arguments, and will instead be marginalized in preference of reasoned political debate. Emotion is clearly an important part of being human, and we need not remove it from who we are. However, emotion ought to take a secondary role in the national and state level political discussion.
Tags: change, gay_marriage, general, politics, religion
