Rhetorical Criticism: New York City Speech

Annie Kessler

Rhetorical Criticism: New York City Speech

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 marriage staged protests all over the country, ranging from thousands of people in East Los Angeles[2] to smaller crowds in Manhattan[3]. 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.

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.

[1] “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.

[2]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.

[3]“Rally Planned to Protest California Marriage Ruling”.The New York Times. May 26, 2009. Online. Date Accessed Jan 22, 2016.

[4]“Rally Planned to Protest California Marriage Ruling”.The New York Times. May 26, 2009. Online. Date Accessed Jan 22, 2016.

[5] “Biography”. Christine Quinn For NYC Mayor. Online. Date Accessed Jan 26, 2016.

[6] “Biography”. Christine Quinn For NYC Mayor. Online. Date Accessed Jan 26, 2016.