28
of “personal attacks” on one’s opponents: for example, supporters of same-sex marriage are
described as “stupid”, “flamboyant and flaunting”, and “worse than pigs and dogs”; opponents
of same-sex marriage are described as “self-righteous”, “hypocritical”, and “pathetic
Neanderthals”. Excluding the personal attacks, the average number of arguments per letter-
writer is four, and there are 62 distinct arguments on the “anti” side and 106 distinct arguments
on the “pro” side. The distribution of arguments by side in the debate is presented in Table 4.
INSERT TABLE 4 HERE
As indicated in Table 4, proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage emphasize
different types of reasons when they defend their preferences. Nearly three-quarters of the
supporters of same-sex marriage mention the symbolic benefits or rights associated with
marriage thereby framing the issue as a matter of equal respect and equal rights: the denial of
marriage rights is discrimination that is both undemocratic and un-American. In this regard,
the letter-writers are following the predominant frame that pro-gay political elites give gay
rights issues (Brewer 2003). Over half (52.5%) of the opponents of same-sex marriage also
mention reasons dealing with symbolic benefits or rights, and most of these arguments are
defensive in nature: marriage is not a “basic right” and sexual minorities are not discriminated
against or treated disrespectfully if they are prevented from marrying. So marriage as a basic
right is an issue around which opponents and proponents have exchanged ideas.
The second most frequent type of argument made in favor of same-sex marriage has to
do with love and commitment norms, and here, in contrast, there is very little dialogue.
Specifically, 44.4% of those favoring same-sex marriage mention the commitments to partners
and children that motivate their defense of same-sex marriage: like heterosexuals, gays and
lesbians want to marry because they are in love and want to provide a stable environment for
their children. But this line of reasoning goes largely unanswered by the opponents. Only
10.2% of them make arguments of this type, and most of those arguments focus on perceived
deficiencies in gay parenting. Critically, only a few of the opponents of same-sex marriage
address the love and desire for commitment that motivates gay and lesbian couples. As
Cheshire Calhoun (1999) has noted, the romantic love of gay and lesbian couples is an
“outlaw emotion”; it is not surprising, therefore, that heterosexual opponents simply refuse to
acknowledge it.
By far the most common argument made by the opponents of same-sex marriage is
one that focuses on gender norms: the idea of the “traditional family” constructed around the
union of “one man and one woman”. Over sixty percent (60.5%) of the opponents offer a
reason falling in this category, and most of these reasons are far from the ideal of “public
reason”. Specifically, many opponents see no need to go any further than playing the
definitional card: “marriage is between a man and a woman, by definition”—end of story.
Opponents that go beyond this definitional “door-slammer” do so in a superficial way: they
Convention