Same sex marriage is always a hot button issue in the press; just this week a reporter asked presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton the question, “Is same sex marriage immoral,” which was prompted by another politician’s statement that same sex marriage is immoral. When asked, both Obama and Clinton sidestepped the issue and issued statements later about how they feel same sex marriage is not immoral. This comes down to the issue of how censored political candidates are, and not whether they think this issue is immoral. Democratic candidate John Edwards answered right away that same sex marriage is not immoral, but let’s face it – he’s not going to win anyway, and will probably drop out of the race to take care of his cancer-stricken wife. In order to understand why this debate is so heated, we must look at the rhetoric behind both sides and how they structure their arguments.
In one article from the book Same Sex Marriage (first edition) an anonymous woman wrote an article title, “I left my husband for the woman I love.” The article is about a woman who leaves her husband once developing a strong connection with another woman. The article goes though how she feels about her new relationship and the place it puts her in the world, how her children are reacting, and how she deals with people's comments. While this may seem like a pro same sex marriage argument, it reads from the other side of the story.
Throughout the article, she doesn’t refer to her partner as anything other than her ‘friend’ and never mentions her desire to get married. From a conservative viewpoint, it looks as though she does not want to get married at all, and the right would be able to use her as an example. This example is a gay woman who is happily unmarried to her partner, and who doesn’t feel the need to pervert the institution of marriage by marrying her gay lover.
Conversely, the article by Andrew Sullivan, “Why the ‘M’ Word Matters to me” from the second edition of the same book, tells the story of a gay man who really wants to get married. Sullivan makes the argument that it was bred in him from the time he was young that when you grow up, you get married, and that is just what you do. Not wanting to disappoint his parents, Sullivan wants the chance to get married too. He doesn’t want a church wedding, and he doesn’t want to offend anyone by getting married, he just wants the chance to fulfill the expectations his parents had for him from the time he was young. He is not ashamed of being gay; he is more ashamed that he possibly let everyone down by not growing up into the person he was supposed to be.
This is clearly a pro-same-sex marriage argument, but it organizes it similarly to the other article. They are both personal stories about what being in a gay relationship means to them. The difference lies in the fact that the first article does not make a clear stance on whether same sex marriage is right or wrong.
Both of the frames used to construct the articles can be improved. The anonymous article’s frame is that it is a personal narrative, which is supposed to appeal to people’s emotions. The problem with this frame in this article is that it doesn’t take a stand either way on the issue of gay marriage, so we are not entirely sure whose emotions are supposed to be effected. We can read this article from either angle, and that is not a persuasive enough argument for this controversial issue.
Sullivan’s frame is similar in that it is a personal story about his struggle to get married, but he also adds in a demonizing frame of other gays. He portrays himself as the model gay man who wants to get married because his parents always expected it of him, and that people like him should get the right to marry because they deserve it more. In order to improve this frame, Sullivan should lobby for gays as a whole, and not just focus on those who are like him. His article is effective and it does play to the emotions, but he is leaving out a large population of the gay community by doing so.
For the anonymous article, the cultural hegemony playing into this article and argument is that she is a woman, and women are expected to get (and stay) married and have kids. She was trapped in a loveless marriage, but the cultural hegemony would rather see her stay in this marriage than find herself real love with a woman. I feel this is what she struggles with as she writes this article, she doesn’t know how to deal with her newfound sexuality and she doesn’t know how to express it. I don’t think she is really against same sex marriage, but she is not ready to say that she is for it either, neither is she completely ready to think of herself as a gay woman.
The cultural hegemony that plays into the Andrew Sullivan article is the desire for the traditional suburban life with a family with 2 kids and white picket fence and a minivan in the driveway. Sullivan has never let go of that dream, even though it is something that he is not legally allowed to have right now. If Sullivan were to have this dream with a partner who he really loved, but they were not married, I don’t think he would ever be truly happy. Marriage is such a part of his culture that he can not see his life meaning anything without it.
I hope that looking at how these arguments are framed will help us understand both sides and we can one day come to an agreement on the issue of same sex marriage.
