standards
Rules of Engagement
This list suggests a set rules by which proponents of the rights of same-sex couples to civil marriage could be guided when engaging in debate with our opponents. The popular debate is being lost to the fire and brimstone brigade, who are succeeding in reductio ad coitus, equating demands for civil marriage rights with universal mandatory public sodomy, or similar cataclysm. By dragging every debate either into the bedroom, or to scripture, the opponents of gay civil marriage are able to end-run several key points in the U.S. Constitution, and apply enormous pressure on elected officials to support heinously dicriminatory legislation that they recognise - in private - as wrong.
These may be contentious. If you disagree with any of these ideas, or would like to suggest or enhance one, email me. Please pass a link to this page around at will.
This will - at some point - be supplemented by another page with some bullet-point refutations of common claims, and useful bite-size facts with which to counter anti-gay arguments. A few choice Bible references (with chapter and verse, of course), a few statistics, a few relevant snippets of the Mass. judgement, and the Canadian court judgement, a list of faith traditions that support and bless same-sex unions. Suggestions are welcome.
Never refer to just 'marriage', be sure instead to say 'civil marriage'.
This is the simplest rule and will have the greatest effect for least effort. The debate is lost once it's transferred to 'sacred' ground. It is essential to be unequivocal that the fundamental right in question is a civil one, a matter for the State to decide and define, and a matter that the state should consider without reference to any particular religious argument to the exclusion of others. The First Amendment is our friend here. Get into the habit of saying 'civil marriage', and keep the debate secular.
If your faith tradition recognises and supports same-sex marriage, it's always worth making that point. It serves to strengthen the case that the religiose rantings of opponents are not the only religious view on the debate. The views of faiths that support gay relationships should be given equal weight.
Don't quote the "One in Ten" or "10 percent" figures for gay population.
The argument that 10% of the male population is homosexual is a fatuous misrepresentation of the original flawed statistic. It's so thoroughly discredited that its use should be steadfastly avoided. Modern science suggests that human sexuality is determinable on a continuous scale with exclusive heterosexuality and exclusive homosexuality at its extremes. In this context, any assertion that a given proportion of the population is gay is nonsense, particularly given the difficulty of identifying the numbers of naturally gay people that have been environmentally repressed into assertions of heterosexuality.
Note that recent evidence has pointed both to genetic origins of sexuality (tinyurl) and to differences in brain physiology (tinyurl) between exclusive homos and heteros. A crux of the arguments put forward by the anti-gay right is that human sexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. If science tells us that it is not a choice at all (it sure wasn't for me), then it really doesn't matter how many gays and lesbians there are: there are some, we cannot change, and we deserve equal rights.
Don't get drawn into theological or biblical arguments - stay secular.
You've probably lost every theological discussion you start. If an opponent of gay civil marriage is using Leviticus or any Biblical standard other than Christ's message of love (and tolerance, compassion, and all that good stuff), then they're already content either to ignore the evidence of their own scripture, or happy to live with its inherent contradictions. You have no chance in rational discussion.
It is better to concede every religious argument, and bring the debate back to the real battleground, the U.S. Constitution and legal code. It's Fred Phelps' constitutionally protected privilege to belive that Matthew Shepard is in hell now, and I'm headed there. It's also my constitutionally protected privilege to believe that Matthew's been reincarnated free from a terrible karmic burden as a very happy infant somewhere, and that Fred is setting himself up for a world of pain in the future. It's may be your constitutionally protected privilege to believe that Fred and I are both nuts and that Matthew's no more than dust. That First Amendment privilege is key in this debate, because it renders any scriptural or exclusively religious moral references irrelevant. It should be enough to demonstrate contradictory religious opinions to every anti-gay assertion to render the assertion moot in this context. We can only hope.
If you lose your temper, or are so impassioned that you appear to have lost it, you've lost the argument.
This general rule is particularly apt in the debate over same-sex civil marriage, since so many of its opponents are practically frothing at the mouth. Remaining calm, clear and concise helps maintain the truth that proponents of same-sex civil marriage speak with the voice of reason. This is not the time for angry, strident protest. Our aim now is to rally our many supporters to stake their voices and votes on a key issue, not to drive them away.
This is not to say that being angry and loud is wrong - it certainly isn't; but we stand a better chance of surviving the current anti-gay backlash if we keep our heads. If the twisted anti-gay false Christians manage to get a constitutional amendment passed to redefine civil marriage as being between one man and one woman, then take to the streets, but until the argument is lost, stay civil.
Be nice to your enemies - it really pisses them off.
Don't make the mistake of identifying this as a partisan debate. It's not. Gay republicans exist, as do anti-gay Democrats. This is a non-partisan debate about civil rights.
Much as it pains me to recognise the fact, the Log Cabin Republicans exist. And they're not alone, as Andrew Sullivan is is happy to point out. Allowing opponents to frame this as a partisan debate drives discussion along irrelevant tangents, away from the core points that proponents need to enumerate. Indeed, we need to make all the more effort to persuade Republican senators and representatives to support same-sex civil marriage; they're the ones who are more likely to follow their glorious leader, Dubya along the lines of a marriage amendment.
