Annie Kessler
Rhetorical Criticism: New York City Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vWtVC3g2Is
The struggle towards the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage has
been a major civil issue in the recent past. The question of whether or not
government can put definitions and change definitions about the right to marry
based on gender is reminiscent of past bans on marriage between two people of
different races. Similar to desegregation laws, there was also a battle between which
branch and level of the government was responsible or justified in making decisions
about same-sex marriage (i.e. should this be a state by state decision, should the
court decide, should the state legislature make the decisions, etc.).
Many politicians have given speeches both in favor of and in opposition to
marriage equality over the past several decades. Some political leaders discussed
the issue while campaigning, others aligned themselves with advocacy groups and
many others have been asked their stance on the issue.
On May 26, 2009 City Council Speaker Christine Quinn addressed a group of
activists that had gathered in Union Square to protest the California Supreme Court
decision to uphold proposition 8. In 2008, opponents of same-sex marriage in
California created the entered the proposition for public vote and it passed with a
52 percent majority that supported the bill.1 After proposition 8 passed, several
same-sex couples went to court to argue the constitutionality of the bill. In 2009, the
California Supreme Court upheld the existing proposition. Proponents of same-sex
“Proposition 8 Timeline: A History of California’s Gay Marriage Ban and Its Legal
Challenges”. Huffington Post. Jun 26, 2013. Online. Dated Accessed Jan 24, 2016.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/proposition-8-timeline_n_3503512.html
1
marriage staged protests all over the country, ranging from thousands of people in
East Los Angeles2 to smaller crowds in Manhattan3. Even though this court ruling
only had a legal impact on residents of California, many people believed that the
California state ruling could impact other states as well.
According to a New York Times article, Marriage Equality New York, an
organization that worked to legal same-sex marriage in New York State, organized a
rally in response to the California court ruling on proposition 8. The protesters
began in the west village and made their way up to Union Square, which is where
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn delivered her speech. 4 Councilmember Quinn
was an outspoken advocate of marriage equality and an openly gay elected official.
Quinn became involved in New York City politics as a community organizer,
working on housing justice and crime reduction.5 She became a City Council
Member in 1999 and was elected as the Speaker of the City Council in 2006, which
made her a high-ranking and powerful female, openly gay politician in New York
City.6 Not surprisingly, marriage equality was an issue that she was very involved in.
Llyod, Jonathan and Jack Noyes, “Thousands Protest Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling”.
NBC Los Angeles. Jul 16, 2009. Online. Date Accessed Jan 24, 2016.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/5000-Protest-Court-Gay-Marriage-Ruling.html
3 “Rally Planned to Protest California Marriage Ruling”. The New York Times. May 26, 2009.
Online. Date Accessed Jan 22, 2016. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/rallyplanned-to-protest-california-marriage-ruling/
4“Rally Planned to Protest California Marriage Ruling”. The New York Times. May 26, 2009.
Online. Date Accessed Jan 22, 2016. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/rallyplanned-to-protest-california-marriage-ruling/
5 “Biography”. Christine Quinn For NYC Mayor. Online. Date Accessed Jan 26, 2016.
http://www.quinnfornewyork.com/biography
6 “Biography”. Christine Quinn For NYC Mayor. Online. Date Accessed Jan 26, 2016.
http://www.quinnfornewyork.com/biography
2
Although this speech given by Speaker Quinn at this rally was not necessarily
a turning point in the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York or across the
country, the speech is interesting from a rhetorical analysis perspective. The timing,
setting and staging of the speech are all particularly interesting. In this speech, City
Council Member Quinn is reacting to a decision made that does not directly impact
her or her constituents but given the possible ripples effects, she makes a decision
to take a stand and speak out about the decision at this rally. Given that this speech
is delivered at a rally and not a more formal press conference, the setting is much
less informal and adds to the passion and humanity of the content of the speech.
Quinn is not standing on a high stage with a podium in front of her. She not reading
off of a teleprompter or even a written speech in front of her but is instead speaking
more freely and causally about her reactions to the current situation. She is almost
standing eye to eye with some of the audience members, which again leads to the
speech feeling more personal.
The setting and location of the speech at Union Square also compliments the
content and delivery of the speech. Although it was not always a safe gathering
place, over the past few decades, Union Square is a place where it is common to see
a street performance, a protest or gathering and a high level of activity. It is an
incredibly visible and public location, which is part of what makes it ideal for a
protest or rally like this. The fact that a politician of her level came to speak at a rally
like this at Union Square, also lends itself to feeling more personal.
The timing of the speech is also important to the content and the delivery.
First of all, the speech is delivered in direct reaction to the California Supreme
Court’s decision and is done so on the same day as the ruling. The quick turnaround
time for this rally enhances the sense of urgency to act that Quinn addresses
towards the end of her speech. Interestingly, the vote on Proposition 8 takes place
on the same day that President Obama announced the nomination of Sonia
Sotomayer to the United States Supreme Court. This appointment was significant
because Sotomayer was the first Latina female judge on the Supreme Court. Quinn
recognizes the opportunity to talk about the monumental appointment in order to
open up the topic from being simply about marriage rights to being about a larger
issue of civil rights and overall equality. Speaker Quinn also capitalizes on
recognizing the President’s appointment to start off the speech on a more positive
note, even though she is addressing an overall disappointment.
The other important role that timing plays in this speech is in the call to
action that Quinn makes at the end of her speech. Given that it is the end of May, the
state legislature will only be in session for another month and therefore if a
marriage equality bill is going to be voted on and ideally passed in New York State, it
needs to be a high priority for state senators. Towards the end of the speech, Quinn
repeats that the audience members and all supporters only have “24 days” in order
to get in touch with their senators to get a bill proposed and voted on. The timing
seems to be important because Quinn is able to talk about using the California ruling
in order to build momentum in New York and take advantage of the time that is left
in the senate session.
The language and delivery of the speech match the feeling that is portrayed
by the setting, place and timing of the speech. Quinn begins the speech by
recounting the questions that she was faced with earlier in the day, asking for her
reaction to the court’s decision and she goes on to essentially re-enact a
conversation. Given the informal nature of the setting, this language seems to work
well, whereas it might seem a bit out of place had she done that same thing at a
moral formal press conference or citywide address.
The language that Quinn uses in the address is also very fitting with the
location because it is a rally and a call to action. Much of her speech uses direct
language, with only a few lines that use elevated language. Since she is at a rally for a
very specific cause, she comes out and directly says “what the California courts did
was wrong” and she repeats this phrase more than once very directly. Quinn also
goes on to use very direct language in her call to action. She gives a very clear next
step for everyone in the audience with a specific timeframe attached. Each person
needs to use the next 24 days to call, visit and lobby their senators to ensure that
they will vote in favor of a marriage equality bill. Each person also needs to talk
about this cause with people who may be represented by a senator that is not in
favor of the bill and work to change their mind.
Although Council Member Quinn was openly in favor of marriage equality
and a major advocate for the cause, in her political position, she does not have the
power or ability to enact specific change for her constituents. She uses the word
“we” through out the speech, which is not uncommon for politicians, but in this case
her actions and her call to action for the audience are almost one in the same. When
Quinn talks about her visits to Albany and her conversations with various state
senators, she is giving examples of the call to action that she then gives the audience.
As a City Council Members, Quinn does not have legislative authority in the state
senate but she can and does urge all of her supporters to call and email their
senators to ensure that their voices are heard.
Although the bulk of Quinn’s speech does use very direct language, she adds
in a few ideographs and references to New York City “civil religion” in a few key
points of the speech. Early on in the speech, Quinn echoes the borough president in
the allusion of comparison between the fight for marriage equality with the fight for
civil rights for African Americans. Quinn makes reference to the fact that “the courts
have been wrong before”, likely referencing one of the many Supreme Court rulings
that were overturned in the 1960s and 1970s, that limited the rights of African
Americans to attend the same schools as white people, for example. This reference is
one that makes sense and strikes a cord with many people at the time when the
speech is given, but it could be a reference that becomes less familiar in the future as
the memory of those historical events becomes more distant.
The other powerful analogy or ideograph used by Quinn in order to
emphasize her point and perhaps continue to deepen the connection between
marriage equality and civil rights is the term “stand up” and “get counted”. She is
arguing that the courts should not actually decide marriage equality but that it
should be a bill passed by the state legislature. The terms “stand up” and “get
counted” carry a lot of connotations about the importance of the right to vote. By
using these terms, Quinn is pushing the audience and the legislature to propose a
bill that can be voted on. These terms bring up a sense of democracy and rights that
are not necessarily exclusive to New York but that are very much American.
There is a short section of the speech where Quinn seems to reference a kind
of shared belief or “civic religion” of people from New York City. At the time,
marriage equality was seen as a state governed issue and therefore the people of
New York City could not operate independently from the rest of the state. Quinn
makes a few references that seem to be an attempt to dispel the belief that all people
from upstate New York are against marriage equality and that all Republicans are
against marriage equality. Quinn references gay couples that she met in Albany
“from upstate” that were there meeting with their senators about marriage equality.
On one hand, it seems that Quinn is trying to offer a positive perspective and ensure
that her audience in New York City does not think that they are alone in this fight
and that there are people from all over the state that support this cause. On the
other hand, this section of the speech was risky because there was a buried
assumption that the audience did not think that there were gay people or advocates
of gay marriage in other parts of the state. Perhaps this assumption does fall
squarely into the “civic religion” that people from New York City do consider
themselves to be living in the center of the universe and the unofficial capital of the
state, if not the country or world at times, but this assumption could also alienate
audience members if they do not identify with this belief.
During the final call to action in the speech, Council Member Quinn makes a
play to the New York City resident tendency towards grit, perseverance and
competition. Although she does not say directly to the audience that New Yorkers
share those tendencies, she uses the idea of “proving the California courts wrong” as
a driving or motivating factor to get marriage equality passed in New York state. At
other moments in the speech, she does talk about marriage as a civil right and that
this is a fight for equality, so it is interesting that towards the end of the speech, the
direction shifts slightly to proving that the courts of another state are wrong. Again,
given that she is at a rally and has used very direct language throughout the address,
this choice of language and sentiment does not seem very out of place. She uses this
shared belief or experience of being a resident of a city that often considers itself to
be “the best” or “better than others” in order to motivate the audience towards the
cause of marriage equality.
Overall, Council Member Quinn’s address at the rally for marriage equality
following the California Supreme Court’s announcement to uphold Proposition 8
makes good use of the setting, timing and place in order to emphasize the topics and
content covered in the speech. The choice of rather direct language and the delivery
of the speech compliment the setting and the overall purpose, which is a very clear
and direct call to action for supporters. Speaker Quinn uses the space and inclusive
language in order to rally supporters around a cause that is obviously personal to
her. Although this specific speech was a pivotal moment in the history and timeline
of marriage equality in New York State or in the country, it was a passionate
reaction to a decision that at the time, seemed to threaten the future of legalized
same-sex marriage in the United States.