To the editors,
While the conduct of some participants at the Gay Marriage debate may have been ridiculous, the issue itself is surely no joke. Indeed, the fact that the debate was emotionally charged only serves to underscore how important this issue is to our society. Hence it is unfortunate that your editorial did nothing to help Clarion readers think about the issue in a responsible manner.
Since you did not provide any details of PFLAG’s presentation, it is impossible for readers to evaluate the claim that it was “unintelligible.” And though we are at least told that the FOF presentation emphasized some notion of family, we are not given any information about why stepfamilies and gay families might be considered “nefarious.” Hence, when we are later told that the FOF representative “dodged” the audience’s questions, we have no way to assess the accuracy of that claim.
Perhaps the Clarion believes that such details are unimportant, since the crowd was already strongly in favor of PFLAG’s position that gay marriage should be legalized. But surely a newspaper serving a university community should help its members understand whether their support of a particular policy is justified. If the crowd is correct that homosexuals should have the same rights to marry that heterosexuals have long enjoyed, then it should be possible to explain why the FOF representative could not have answered the tough questions no matter how hard he tried. And if there are any reasons to worry that gay marriage might erode some important family values, then even PFLAG supporters need to be aware of them. If we ultimately conclude that such values are less important than ensuring that homosexuals enjoy full equality and individual rights, we should at least understand what is being sacrificed. Alternatively, we might be able to demonstrate that any important family values will not in fact be destroyed by gay marriage (which would be a highly significant result).
The Clarion’s coverage of the debate may also reflect the belief that divisive issues simply cannot be resolved through reasoning, no matter how carefully that reasoning is examined. But while it is true that human emotions are not entirely subject to reasons, it is far from obvious that our feelings about an issue are never influenced by our thoughts. More importantly, the fact that we do not share our opponent’s feelings about an issue does not mean that our opponent’s thinking is incomprehensible. Even if PFLAG and FOF supporters will never “like” each other’s positions, it is still possible for them to understand (and perhaps even learn from) each other’s point of view. Hence, while I appreciate the Clarion’s efforts to be entertaining and lighten the mood after a heated debate, I would like to suggest that helping to achieve this kind of understanding would be a much more worthy goal for a university newspaper to pursue.
Sincerely,Nancy MatchettMarsico Lecturer
