Politics, gay marriage and the English language

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday November 03, 2009 · 6:50 AM PST

2009/11/03 · 06:50

In today's "Cheers and Jeers" post, Bill in Portland Maine presented us today with the text of the ballot question that Maine voters are voting on now, as we speak. The ballot question reads, literally:

Do you want to reject the new [Maine] law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?

What worries me is that those opposed to marriage equality are better organized than those out there who simply think marriage equality is fair. Thus the opponents' forces will be able to simply send their forces to the polls, armed with information on how to think, while proponents will be more prone to get their wires crossed--like I did, when reading that poll question. Three times. And I've already forgotten whether voting yes or no means supporting marriage equality. Okay, I just read it again: yes means you oppose marriage equality, no means you support marriage equality. Quick! Write that down before you forget it! (Especially if you’re voting in Maine today!)

People like to be for something, and not against something. The question is written to read, "Do you support repealing the law..." rather than "Do you oppose the law..." Whoever wrote that question was smart. Bigoted, but smart.

Another smart aspect of the anti-equality campaign is that they paint themselves as "for marriage" while they in fact oppose a certain kind of marriage while they're not actually defending a real threat to the kinds of marriages that already exist. If the anti-equality people said, "We're against gay marriage," our work would be easier, since we could more easily paint them as a bunch of sourpusses who are trying to stop something that harmless people want. But if they're "for marriage" then logically their opponents are "against marriage," right? Kind of like someone who's not "pro-life" must be "anti-life" (or, for that matter, someone who's not "pro-choice" must be "anti-choice.")

The key is to beat them at their own game. I like the way many people have gone with calling it "marriage equality." That broadens the concept, even thought the point here is more to allow gay marriage, rather than to broaden the marriage rights of us straight people. But it reminds straight people that, even though they're not gay, they have a stake in this, too. That's also what the equality opponents are trying to do, which is why it's important to drive home the point that you can be for equality. The side that comes across as the most positive in this debate is the side that's going to win. Of course, I think marriage equality is inevitable, but that inevitability will come a lot faster if we lay claim to the positive ground. The opponents understand that already.

This content was created by a Daily Kos Community member.

Make YOUR voice heard!

Comments are closed on this story.