2
Debate over same-sex marriage is heating up. But can our nation discuss the issue
democratically? A central dilemma for deliberative democracy is that the truly contentious
issues—like same-sex marriage—where society would most benefit from deliberation are the
same issues that are most difficult to talk about in a democratic fashion. In explaining this,
previous scholars have typically concentrated on the nature of the issues and the values
underlying them. In contrast, I adopt a broader focus by arguing that social identities,
emotions and reason interact together to shape public discourse in a complex way that
sometimes undermines democratic discussion. Thus the same-sex marriage debate cannot
be adequately understood by considering only the arguments on each side of the issue.
Instead, these debates are also about the meaning of core identities defined through marriage
and the emotions associated with them, both of which influence the substantive nature of the
arguments offered in public discourse. Recognizing this complexity allows for a more realistic
assessment of the democratic potential of the same-sex marriage debates.
To explore these ideas, I examine the social identities, emotions and reasons that
define the same-sex marriage debates that have occurred in response to recent ballot
initiatives, legislation and court decisions. I proceed as follows. Drawing on political theory
and social psychology, Part I explains how identity politics in general can threaten the
democratic nature of political discussion. Part II outlines the specific issues at stake in
debates over same-sex marriage. Part III describes my analysis of “letters to the editor” as a
form of public discourse and communication. Part IV reports my findings about “identity talk”,
emotions and reason in the same-sex marriage debate. Finally, Part V summarizes the
lessons emerging from my empirical analysis about public discussion, identity politics and
same-sex marriage.
I. IDENTITY POLITICS AND POLITICAL DISCUSSION
Understanding the same-sex marriage debates requires a recognition of how identity
politics complicates democratic discussion. To address this, it is first necessary to review the
central features of democratic discussion. While political theorists offer different visions of
democratic deliberation, most accounts include three essential characteristics that can be
applied to political discussions (Conover, Searing and Crewe 2002). First, discussions should
be public (Bohman 1996; Cohen 1997; Rawls 1997). Access should be open and citizens
should discuss in a rational manner offering "public reasons” for their preferences. As Amy
Gutmann and Dennis Thompson (1996, p. 53) explain, citizens should offer “reasons that can
be accepted by others who are similarly motivated to find reasons that can be accepted by
others”. Thus ideally, democratic discussion excludes private talk and, as Lynn Sanders
(1997, p. 371) points out, talk that is "impassioned, extreme, and the product of particular
Convention