3 Steps to defeating Marriage Amendment

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman at 10:25 AM on June 5, 2006.

This week President Bush took time out from his busy schedule to renew his support for Constitionally enforced inequality in America -- a federal amendment banning equal rights [Fun with supporters of the Amendment HERE -- ed.]. Even though most of us believe that The Constitution of the United States should never be used to deny rights, President Bush believes it should.

Here we go again. Apparently, repeating the word "terror" over and over again is not enough to bring up President Bush's polling numbers. So…cracking open his trusty tupperware of hate-n-divide politics, President Bush has once again served up a healthy portion of: gay bashing for votes.

But we know all this. We know the old GOP strategy What we need to know, now, is how to stop this assault on equal rights. What can we say to put this genie back in the bottle once and for all?

Step 1: Talk About The Constitution...

Progressives cannot take control of this debate if they repeat the GOP frame of "gay marriage." But we also cannot ignore the topic once it is already out there.

The solution is to steal by the ball by focusing on The Constitution. In my informal surveys, readings and conversations, I have found that even Americans who are most uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage -- these same people are even more uncomfortable with the idea of turning The U.S. Constitution into a document that enforces inequality.

The idea that The Constitution is the moral foundation of our nation and that it should never be used to create inequality -- is a value far deeper and far more important than the discussion of marriage rights.

When we hear talk of "defense of marriage amendments," we should not hesitate for a second: change the frame to The Constitution protecting, not stripping, equal rights.

Step 2: Talk About 'Time'

The big frame change to take control of this issue and to stop it for good is the "time" frame.

The "time" frame is broad frame that defines the current issue relative to a fixed amount of time and is embodied in this deceptively powerful question:

Do we have time for this now?

Notice how this question is based on the metaphor of [time] as a [fixed and tangible resource]. Time is not unlimited, it does not grow on trees. We only "have" "so much" time to "go around," so we better "use" the time "we have" wisely.

From this idea we quickly see the logic of one of the most devastating things anyone can be told in a political debate:

We do not have time for this

After we switch the debate from the "defense of marriage" to protecting the ideals of our Bill of Rights we immediately take control of the time frame by saying "We do not have time for this."

America has real and pressing problems to face. We are in a war that is spiraling out of control and costing lives. We need to spend our time on that problem We have an energy crisis that threatens to bankrupt Americans. We need to spend our time on that problem. We have a health crisis in costing us billions and leaving our families unhealthy and afraid. We need to spend time on that. We have an environmental crisis that is deteriorating day by day. We need to spend time on that. We have the next hurricane season that is beating a path towards our shores. We need to spend time on that. We simply do not have any time to waste debating whether we should or should not use The Constitution to enforce inequality.

Time is the frame.

Step 3: How May People Have Died?

The last step is to extend the time frame by linking it to the problems we face right now.

After we frame the debate in terms of the Constitution and limited time, we must ask a series of bold and direction questions about the dangers that result from not solving the real problems that face us:

How many people have died in Iraq because of a marriage?

How much has the price of gas gone up because of a marriage?

How many people died during Hurricane Katrina because of a marriage?

How much has the environment been damaged because of a marriage?

How many jobs have been shipped overseas illegally because of a marriage?

How many corporations have broken labor laws because of a marriage?

How many children have had their asthma untreated because of a marriage?

How many elected officials in Washington have been indicted for corruption becauseof a marriage?

The list could go on for days. But the point is clear. By asking these questions, we are taking control of the debate. We are saying that America does not have time to waste on foolishness that serves only to insult the honor of our Constitution. We are demanding that the debate stay focused on the real issues we face as a nation.

And is it any wonder President Bush and the GOP do not want to talk about these issues? They are all problems created or made worse by GOP policies.

To beat the marriage amendment debate, follow these three easy steps. The only way to lose is to get drawn into President Bush's frame.