It may come as a surprise to many that here at The State Press opinion section, we actually do have rules to follow -- well, more like guidelines, really. One of them is not to talk about big hot-button issues like abortion, gun control and the like because the issues are so long-standing and controversial. Good luck changing anyone's opinion about them in 600 or so words.
For something like gay marriage, all 600 words can buy is maybe a little calm. Yes, I'm against it, but all I can do is say that without a healthy and honest rational debate, we'll get nowhere on this suddenly current issue.
I can say from experience that arguing about gay marriage is something that only seems to be able to happen in a face-to-face, one-on-one environment. Any less personal than that, and you get the never-ending game of "shut up, you're a bigot."
"Bigot" is the nicest one they use, actually -- "fascist," "Nazi," etc., are all exercised easily for their usual modern purpose of ending dialogue rather than encouraging it. You can't take everyone from seasoned conservative pundits to easygoing college students to the president of the United States and lump them in with the kind homophobic psychopaths who protested at Matthew Shepherd's funeral.
Sorry, but you just can't; it might make you feel morally superior, but it accomplishes nothing. Considering that many people on the pro-gay marriage side are the same lefties who spent the past couple years screaming about everyone accusing them of being unpatriotic just for opposing war in Iraq, one would think they might be a little more sympathetic.
Similarly, don't just trot out the same repetitive boilerplate about the Federal Marriage Amendment being "discrimination." The crux of the FMA is that it would define marriage as being between one man and one woman, and this would technically "discriminate" against two people of the same sex who want to marry each other. Just like the 13th Amendment "discriminates" against slave owners, the 22nd Amendment "discriminates" against people who want to be elected president more than twice, the 26th against people who want to vote before they turn 18, and so forth.
Critics of the FMA would object and say that the discrimination against those parties in the other amendments is for legitimate purposes, and that's fine -- but they need to keep in mind that supporters of the FMA have reasons to consider it's kind of "discrimination" to be legitimate as well. If you disagree with their reasons, then ARGUE your case; don't just use the D-word as a trump card.
Speaking of constitutional amendments, the sudden melodrama over their very existence needs to stop, right this instant. The "they're willing to CHANGE the Constitution over this?!" hysteria is absurdity on its face, because proposing an amendment is every bit a part of the democratic process. Every amendment needs to be ratified by a supermajority of two-thirds of both houses of Congress, as well as two-thirds of the votes of all 50 states. If the people like it, it will go through; if they don't, it won't. It's a heck of a lot more democratic than letting a few unelected judges (or a mayor on a power trip) suddenly re-write 200-plus years of U.S. legal understanding.
That leads into the most important thing to remember: don't blame the president. Looking at his statements over the past few months, it's quite obvious that although he is personally against gay marriage, he didn't want to support the FMA. It's more than probable that Bush, in the spirit of federalism, would have been perfectly content to let the states decide on gay marriage through their own voter initiatives, but when San Francisco disobeyed its own laws and started handing out Monopoly-money marriage certificates, the president's hand was forced. The conniption fits gay supporters are having about President Bush right now are no one's fault but their own.
And this is not the half of it. The point is that any open debate needs to put aside the emotional rhetoric and half-truths, or else no one will be satisfied.
Eric Spratling is a public relations senior. Call him a discriminating bigot at eric.spratling@asu.edu.
Read his blog online at asuwebdevil.com
