Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Just out. (Portland, OR) 1983-2013 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 23, 2004)
January 23.2004 « mTTTîWnTïnetus o a tj f y — E ngaging D ialogue e r\ Workshop teaches queers how to discuss same-sex marriage with opponents by Michael Burdick uddenly, same-sex marriage has been propelled to the forefront of national attention. Many queers have been taken by surprise at how quickly this has happened, having lost hope that the United States would grant equal marriage rights anytime soon or that it would even seriously consider doing so. T he matter took on new life after a couple o f high courts ruled on the side o f justice. Things really heated up when President Bush’s PR team realized the controversy might help him keep his job through the upcoming election, hy energizing his core supporters and distracting everyone from his failed policies. T he established wisdom held that there is a consensus in the United States against same-sex marriage. Surveys consistently show a majority disapprove, though the number opposed has been slowly shrinking for years, falling to 53 percent in a Pew poll last July. For Bush to take up the cause agaiast same-sex marriage would please his sup porters in the religious right wing while being potentially popular with the nation at large. Republicans are united agaiast same-sex mar riage, while Democrats are evenly split. The situ ation is ideal for Bush, he thinks, because it unites his base and divides his opponents. Democrats will he forced to either take a principled stand against apparent popular opinion or risk the wrath of gay rights activists and advocates for equality and justice everywhere. For his opening salvo, Bush pleased his gay- hating supporters by expressing, with furrowed brow, his belief that limiting marriage to opposite- sex couples “ought to be codified in some way.” In his State of the Union address Jan. 20, after a token nod toward respecting individuals, he declared support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage, saying this was necessary to stop the “activist judges” from threatening the “sanctity” of marriage. W ith the W hite House and the makeup of Congress hanging in the balance, how the public responds to this issue in the coming months will have widespread coasequences. If queer activists Bonnie Tinker outlines an effective debating tactic to workshop participants Jan. 17 can help it, the ruck- T-* 1 . . us IS raising around same-sex marriage will lead people to talk about and re-evaluate their positioas. The time is ripe for a sea change in national thinking, and some believe it is our responsibility as queer U.S. citizens to participate in this dialcf^ie. I | / ith this in mind, Love Makes a Family played host to a workshop Jan. 17 titled “Engagement! Strategies for Talking About Sam e-Sex Marriage.” About 15 people gathered to prepare for effectively discussing and debating the issue. After bringing everyone up to date with the lat est news about same-sex marriage, workshop leaders Bonnie Tinker and Cecil Prescod explained a debating tactic that they have found particularly effective, not just in formal debates hut in any con versation where two people are discussing some thing they don’t completely agree on. The tech nique is effective for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it helps curb the ubiquitous devolution of modem political discourse. “W e often see debates and discussions where there’s one side yelling at the other side and they’re talking past one another,” Prescod explains. “And because they have...such dis tinct, separate, philosophical political religious reasoas it is often difficult to have meaningful dialogue.” V Bridge City Family Medical Clinic, PC Teri Bunker, FNP H o a rd C ertified Fa m ily N u rse P ra ctitio n er ■ s% Chronic and Acute Health Care Needs Family Practice/Primary Health Care for Women. Men and Children of All Ages Most Insurance Accepted T h e four-step technique is known as LA RA : listen, affirm, respond, add. First, you should listen carefully to what your “opponent” is say ing and where he or she is coming from. “We live in a culture of dominance,” Tinker says. “T h e trick is to move it from that kind of thing where all you’re trying to do is dominate.” Tinker says what we expect in a debate is that the participants will always be listening for errors or m isstatem ents they can use to make their opponent look foolish, listening for opportunities to hijack the conversation, listening for openings to denounce the other side. W ith the L A R A technique, you listen instead for som ething in your opponent’s argument that you agree with, “som ething you m ight even have said yourself,” she explains. In the next step, you affirm something that your opponent said. This shows respect for your opponent and has a disarming effect because it is surprising and unexpected. It gets your oppo nent’s attention and sets the stage for your next step— respond. Here you answer the question your opponent asked, or somehow respond to the point he or she was making. This is in co n trast to debates on the evening news where it’s all about ignoring your opponent’s points and staying “on message.” In the final step, you add new information to the discussion. T his is where you say what you really wanted to say all along. Injured? 2821 N E .58th Avenue • P o rtla n d . OK ‘>7213 Cross street at Sandy Itlvd. M ichael B urdick is a recent graduate o f Reed. College. H e can be reached at m ike@ nibblicum s.com . ...Call me Free Consultation No Fee Unless You Recover Hala Gores, P.C. A ttorney at Law 503 / 2 9 5 -1 9 4 0 12th Floor, 621 SW Morrison 503 / 460-0405 It is a lot easier to understand the power of this technique with a little practice. A fter holding a brain storming session to come up with a list of all the arguments against same-sex marriage that queers are likely to encounter, the meeting broke into small groups to practice the LA RA method. In one example, the opponent says, “Gay relationships are an unhealthy environment for children.” Listening to that is one thing, but what can you affirm about it? O ne way to go is, “We all want children to grow up healthy and happy.” From there you can respond to the opponent’s point by saying something like, “T here’s no evidence that living in a gay family is harmful to children,” and then you can add, “Besides, the love parents have for their children is a lot more important than what gender the parents are.” A fter practicing the m ethod for a w hile, participants regrouped and dis cussed what had com e up in their ses sions. T h e d istin ctio n betw een civil marriage and marriage as a sacram ent had been particularly thorny. Som e par ticipants thought that queers should leave religion out o f these discussions and try to argue only for civil marriage rights, based on equality under the law. O th ers felt that the subject c a n ’t be de-spiritualized— that many people’s opinions on the m atter are fused with religious beliefs. S u ch people would never agree to civil gay marriage on earthly grounds, and therefore the only way to reach them would be to engage them in debates about spiritual m atters. O n e surprise at the workshop came from Pam, a participant who helped put the sanctity o f marriage in a larger context. Sh e cited Yale h istorian Jo h n Bosw ell, “who did some research at the V atican library, and what he found is that originally heterosexual marriages were legal affairs because they involved proper ty and children and procreation. It was gay marriages th at were recognized by the [Catholic] C hurch because they were recog nized as purely a m atter o f love and com m it m ent. S o they were a sacram en t.. .and that pre dates heterosexual marriages being recognized in the chu rch.” T h e workshop ended with a call for volun teers who would be available to hold up our side of the debate at other events or to the press when such opportunities arise during the com ing months. JH1 Portland PO RTLA N D AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION Integrity. E xperience Results & Proudly serving our community since 1989 in personal injury claims including: • Auto & Motorcyle Accidents Bicycle & Pedestrian Accidents • Medical Malpractice • Wrongful Death • Defective Products • Insurance Claims You Deserve f ull Compensation for: » Poin & Suffering Medical Expenses • Lost Earnings Property Damage • Car Rental \
