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 \