“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of divine providence. It is a trial which the whole Church… must take up.” Karol Cardinal Wotyla (Sept. 1976)

Saturday, May 31, 2008

The Race to Name and Define an Issue

In the political arena, victory on issues by public opinion is not always won by the validity of the issue, but rather which side names and defines the issue in the public's psyche first.

In the political realm, there are hundreds of examples of both sides of an issue trying to name and define the issue to best position their side to eventually win the battle on the issue: Pro-life vs. Pro-choice; Physician-Assisted Suicide vs. Mercy Killing, etc...

Where the pro-life movement did this so perfectly and to such a success, was Partial Birth Abortion. During the initial public discourse, when America was making up their minds on this issue, the Pro-life movement wanted to accurately label this procedure, “Partial Birth Abortion,” where liberals constantly tried to label this horrific procedure “Late Term Abortion,” to lessen the reality of what happens during this procedure and make it more palatable. The Pro-Life side was the first side to successfully stake their naming flag in this issue and own the issue by making their title stick.

Moreover, I remember seeing multiple Pro-life guests on news talk shows jabbing scissors into the back of the neck of plastic baby dolls with loud audio “pops” sending shivers up the viewers' spines - - which secondly allowed us to define the brutality of this issue in people’s minds as gruesome.

We had the NAME and we DEFINED the issue. The public discussions and battles were over. The Pro-Life cause did it so well, and public opinion swelled so much against this procedure, that even extreme left-wing ideologists crossed the isle to speak out on this issue.
For instance, pro-abortionist Daniel Patrick Moynihan stated this procedure was "only minutes away from infanticide."

What should concern all of us on the issue of Gay Marriage, is that the conservative movement is neither naming nor defining this issue. Recently, with all these bombs exploding everywhere this past week, a defining term emerged from the opposition: “Marriage Equality”. I saw it in print media and heard it on the news. You would think that it was distributed as a talking point to news organizations -- maybe it was. I mean who can be against marriage, or equality? It is a perfect populist term.

The pro-family side is yet to come up with a sticking term. I am not sure what it is or should or shouldn't be. Maybe something like, “Fruitless Marriage”- - nothing can come from it, or “Biologically-Incompatible Marriage”, but they better name it soon.

Secondly, even people with deep convictions against Gay Marriage can not define clearly why it is so bad for society. Other than citing the Bible, they can not articulate what is known as a truth in their hearts and persuade the large voting group in the middle whom may not be evangelicals. VCR friend, and President of the N.Y. Chapter of the AFA, Frank Russo mentioned on his broadcast that if Social Security and Medicare take on domestic partners benefits as well, both funds will be bankrupted 5 years earlier than their target date now. Mr. Russo was skillfully defining one aspect of the issue and is on the right track, but more of a true essence, the center point definition of this issue is needed for others to easily understand and be against it.

Maybe defining it involves stating repeatedly the same one or two bi-products of gay marriage that shows quantifiable harm on society.

I am not sure how to correctly name or define this issue, but we are not doing it now and we better soon!