Proposition 8
There are extremists on both sides of Prop 8. There are people who slant the truth on both sides. There are people who are afraid of losing rights on both sides. There are good people on both sides.
So, how does a person decide? Classical scholars Aristotle and Cicero give us some great insight into making decisions when the rhetoric circulating around an issue is emotional, political, and highly charged.
There are three basic types of rhetoric: forensic, epideictic, and deliberative. By separating each of these categories and looking at the rhetoric surrounding each, we can make sense of the rhetoric that is swirling around the issue.
Forensic rhetoric related to Proposition 8 looks at what has happened in the past and makes judgments. Some of the “Yes on Prop 8” rhetoric belongs in this category. Looking especially at the events that have occurred in public schools in Massachusetts and San Francisco in recent years and months, proponents of Prop 8 state that (1) Massachusetts schoolteachers have taught homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle choice (one famous example is the second-grade reading of “King and King,” a book about a prince who decides to marry another prince); and (2) San Francisco elementary school students went on a school-sponsored field trip to their lesbian teacher’s wedding. So, while it is true that California schools aren’t required to teach about marriage, proponents of Prop 8 have argued that it has happened in the recent past and will most likely happen in the future. Other arguments using forensic rhetoric include (1) Catholic Charities in Massachusetts decided to close its doors rather than be required to adopt children to gay couples; and (2) a church in Massachusetts lost its tax exemption for a pavilion that was denied to a gay couple for a wedding.
Epideictic rhetoric looks to make value judgments and is largely located in the present tense. Most of the “No on Prop 8” rhetoric belongs to this category. “Unfair. Unnecessary. Wrong” is “No on Prop 8’s” epideictic slogan. Opponents of Prop 8 characterize Prop 8 as a civil rights issue and state it is unfair to treat homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. Although California’s Family Code (297.5) gives the same rights to homosexual domestic partners as married couples enjoy, opponents feel that homosexual partnerships are discriminated against because they don’t enjoy the same social approval as heterosexual couples (e.g., some opponents of proposition 8 call “Yes on Prop 8” organizations “hate groups” ). Some describe homosexual marriage as “wrong” from a value- or religious-based point of view. However, “No on Prop 8” uses this type of rhetoric more directly and ubiquitously than proponents of Prop 8.
Deliberative rhetoric looks to make decisions in the future. Both opponents and proponents of Prop 8 use this type of rhetoric when they ask you to vote. However, “Yes on Prop 8” uses this type of rhetoric more directly when it suggests that homosexual marriage will be normalized in schools; churches will lose their tax-exempt status if they don’t allow gay marriage; and adoption agencies will be required to adopt children to gay couples.
When we strip away the rhetoric, what it really comes down to is this: Do you feel that homosexual marriage should be granted the same social status as heterosexual marriage? If so, you’ll approve of the changes that have been made in Massachusetts and San Francisco; you will agree with opponents of Proposition 8 that homosexual domestic partnerships, while equal in rights, are discriminatory; and you will hope for the day when homosexual marriage will be normalized in our society.
But if you still think that society should uphold the nuclear family as the ideal, however far from the ideal we might be, then you will agree with the supporters of Proposition 8.
I am a divorced, re-married woman with a blended family and numerous gay friends and relatives. My family certainly does not fit the ideal, yet I believe in it. I want nothing more than for my gay friends and relatives to find happiness and love in a stable relationship with equal rights. They have the ability to have that now. But I also want my children to grow up in a society where they are taught that, while there are other family configurations, the ideal unit of society is a family with a mother and a father. For this reason, I am voting “Yes” on Proposition 8.
Amy Cook
