Saw a bit of the American news on NBC's Weekend Today which was about the attempt currently underway to have a constitutional amendment which defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Anyway, the news reporter was saying how the Democrat candidates, in order to secure both the gay and middle American votes, have needed to take the position that this amendment doesn't fly with them because, though they believe marriage is a heterosexual institution, it is the right of the states to legislate about it. The 'wisdom' of this position is that it allows them to 1) distinguish themselves from Bush's position, in that they are against a constitutional amendment, 2) demonstrate their 'family values' so as not to turn off voters who might otherwise dismiss Kerry and Edwards as homo-loving freaks, and 3) still be the lesser of two evils to gay voters, because while holding the 'personal' view that marriage is a hetero deal, they do not seek to prevent states from performing their right to preside and decide over marriage law, which in turn allows for the possibility that states may change their laws to encompass gay marriages if they so choose. Now, all I wanted to say was that I think this position isn't wise or politically astute at all. In fact, I think it's framed all wrong. States' rights is a big deal and all, in a federated system of government etc, but why not frame the debate by focussing on the discriminatory nature of such an amendment? Why not talk about equal rights? And not just talk about them but centre your position on them? Why not appeal to those values? To respond to Bush with an unshakeable committment to the anti-discrimination ethic already 'enshrined' in the Bill of Rights, etc. To my mind, making their 'on message' mantra "It's not about marriage, folks, it's about rights" would achieve the following things; 1) It would distinguish Kerry and Edwards from Bush's position, like der, but it would also put Bush in the position of having to defend himself against charges of being discriminatory, which would force him into rationalising double-speak and people don't dig that. Such double-speak would be especially bad for Bush considering he has set his cap on being 'plainspoken'. If he has to um and arr and duck and weave his way to finishing the sentence "I'm not being discriminatory because...", his 'plainspoken' thing might just come to be seen as nothing more than a euphemism for 'unbearably right-wing'. 2) Not only would such a stance demonstrate Kerry and Edwards' 'values' to middle America but it might also contribute to people actually thinking about what it means to deny a group the option of exercising a right that this nebulous thing called 'middle America' itself cherishes to such an extent as to consider it 'sacred'. In the 'making an appeal' sense, this is 'appealing' to middle American voters. It forces them to interrogate their own position. They go, "Hmmm, I like the 'marriage' thing. It's an institution that I totally dig. But the 'rights' thing is also something that I am very down with. I mean, I live in the middle of America for heck's sake. Rights are my bag. Oh dear, what will I do?" They are put in the position of having to evaluate what's more important to them and then decide. That's a good thing. 3) This anti-discriminatory position displays the candidates' committment [despite a personal belief that marriage is a hetero deal, which might actually be what they think, I dunno] to the fundamental American value of equal rights, and demonstrates how they work on principle to establish and defend this fundamental right of equality in everyday life... which might also appeal to gay voters. 4) Instead of being the lesser of two evils, which on this issue they are, Kerry and Edwards would actually be good, ie. not shitty. Debate is all about framing sometimes, and I think Kerry and Edwards really need to conduct this one using a completely different language than the one Bush is using. Right now their focus is all wrong, too much talk of marriage and its hundreds of years of history, not enough about rights. Go at it on different terms, I say. Take the power back. The thing is, this re-framing that I'm advocating doesn't actually commit them to anything more than they're already committed to. It's just the way of it that changes. They're still just against the constitutional amendment. That's it. And if someone asked them if they had plans to overhaul marriage laws on a national level to remove any discrimination, they could still go "Well, marriage laws have always been a state issue". That's not my position, but they might really think states' rights are a big deal. Even though national, constitutionally enshrined anti-discrimination measures were deemed necessary for racial equality. Anyway, my basic notes for Kerry and Edwards are to talk about this issue in terms of rights and discrimination, and to respond to every question with "Well, I can't support a discriminatory policy" and then expand as the occasion requires. 'Discriminatory' is a big, bad, defining word. And you can apply it to Bush. Make it a character issue. It'll work. I swear. I mean, it's not so weird, is it? It's sound political strategy in my opinion. And it's way more defensible than the strange distinction their current position requires, being for equal rights and for states' rights but against gay marriage because civil unions are like, the same as marriage while also being decidedly not marriage because marriage is like, special. Seriously dudes, I want you to win. You can win. And you can do it with honour.