The case for same-sex marriage: language matters

Readers of this blog know that I have expressed skepticism about justifications for excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.  At the same time, I find much of the rhetoric offered in support of SSM to be unhelpful and unproductive, to say the least.  Exhibit A is today's speech by New York Governor David Paterson, who unveiled his proposal for SSM and made it very clear what he thinks of anyone who does not get on board:

Anyone that has ever experienced degradation or intolerance would understand the solemn duty and how important it actually is. Anyone that’s ever experienced antisemitism or racism, any New Yorker who is an immigrant, who has experienced discrimination, any woman who has faced harassment at work or suffered violence at home, any disabled person who has been mocked or marginalized, understands what we’re talking about here. We have all known the wrath of discrimination. We have all felt the pain and the insult of hatred. This is why we are all standing here today. We stand to tell the world that we want equality for everyone. We stand to tell the world that we want marriage equality in New York State.

Yes, it is undeniably true that many gays and lesbians have experienced discrimination, violence, and marginalization on account of their sexual orientation.  But to imply that all opposition to SSM is coming from a place of "hatred" is inaccurate and irresponsible.  It further polarizes a debate that is already deeply contentious.  And when the governor of New York appears eager to engage in this sort of stark line-drawing, it does not bode well for the future viability of religious liberty.  I believe that SSM will be adopted in the majority of states over the coming years, but the tone and substance of the political discourse used along the way matters a lot.