American discourse has long been dictated by the perpetual freedoms of the First Amendment, which in part states that every person has the right to free speech. Though that right exists, there is no law dictating the reasoning behind our statements. Everyone has the right to say what they believe without obligation to justify it through action or evidence. As LGBT activists have increasingly found, rhetorical strategies have been more effective at blunting our rights than physical or legal action have in the past. On many levels, the statements anti-LGBT forces have made are unsound and even dangerous, and while the statements may be traced to individuals, they influence a great deal of citizens who make decisions in political matters based on their trust in words coming from a figure of authority.
Crafting rhetoric is a main component of creating media, and as society moves to an increased reliance on technology, this component becomes more prevalent in other public arenas. The power of crafting rhetoric to suit one’s needs is exemplified most recently by the upholding of Proposition 8 and President Obama’s brief supporting the Justice Department’s decision to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama’s brief is dissected here by AmericaBlog, but they have also included the full brief for perusal. Much of the language involved has been used previously by many gay marriage opponents to successfully counter same-sex marriage around the U.S. Their sentiment is that civil unions or domestic partnerships are acceptable substitutes for civil marriage, thereby circumventing discrimination; on the surface, these unions or partnerships are seemingly modified forms of marriage. Unfortunately, this rhetoric is disingenuous as to the degree of difference between marriage and other unions. Marriages can be federally recognized and guarantee all the rights conferred by the state regardless of individual couples. Unions and partnerships vary by state, can only be recognized in that state and do not necessarily guarantee the same rights as marriage. For example, many states have civil union laws that do not require businesses to include partner protection for employees, an important factor to many queer couples looking to form a legal bond.
One reason rhetoric has become so common a tool in deciding issues is that the contemporary vernacular allows a level of tolerability to slights against the LGBT community on a regular basis. Recent political correctness campaigns to stop teenagers from saying “That’s so gay” and efforts to reclaim words such as “queer,” “fag” and “dyke” have been aimed to change some attitudes, or at least some speaking habits, but their focus is limited because they only point out specific words. 
In the May 2009 issue of Details Magazine, the cover directly states, “America’s First Tranny Mayor.” For those outside the transgender and allied community, it may be hard to understand the insult of the terminology used, but it is similar to writing on the cover “America’s First Faggot Mayor;” regardless of the affirming message of the article inside, the first statement people read is a face-slap to a whole group of people. Putting more concern on what is said than under what circumstances it would be appropriate to say something is the direct cause of rhetorical legitimacy; the only way to get people to understand what they are saying is to redirect how they think from focusing solely on the message to focusing prominently on the meaning of that message.
Education is the most effective way to combat this sinister rhetoric our LGBT community faces. When communicating with others, always make sure to critically engage them with actual facts and statistics that you have researched. This means being a more informed citizen, which can only be a positive outcome. At the same time, call out those who are only using rhetoric to form their arguments. Even if you find evidence that may support their side, you need to make sure to let others in on actual facts that affect policy rather than utilizing scare tactics such as hypothetical outcomes and religious dogma to affect people’s decisions. As much as our indignation and commitment to our rights may drive us to keep battling oppressive forces, we must remember to always back up what we read and hear with justifiable evidence. Action is everything. Words will only get us so far, and we can hope our opponents stick to their rhetorical tactics while we evolve.
