Activist Judges on Same-Sex Marriage, by Josh Goetz

On the 11th of February Scott Barclay from the University of Albany gave a presentation on the situation and reason behind there being no activist judges on the issue of same-sex marriage. The meeting was held at the University of Denver and much of the audience was political science professors and activists for same-sex marriage. A nearly even group of men and women made up the audience. This group of well versed scholars was his target audience, since I am not an expert on the issue of same-sex marriage I found his presentation to be rather dry and too in depth for my understanding. There were only about fifteen people who came to the presentation. Scott Barclay was introduced as a very productive and interesting scholar that had published many works in the field and he offered an experienced
opinion on the topic.

The mood of the lecture was developed through the rhetorical situation and the physical features that were present. Before the presentation the lights were dimmed and each person in the audience introduced themselves and their experience. The audience was then set as an educated group that Barclay was expected to woo. The room was very dark and the audience sent mixed messages. One woman was eating her lunch while he presented so in between his points crunching was heard. Other people in the audience were nodding after his points and occasionally would shoot a dirty look over to the oblivious woman eating. Barclay himself was wearing a suit as other men in the audience. He was clean cut and wearing a khaki colored suit and a dark red tie. The way he was dressed showed that he took this presentation seriously. After Barclay was finished with his PowerPoint he opened the floor up to questions. One man asked Barclay to further explain a theory using a theory that he had presented using the state of California as an example. Before the man had even finished his question Barclay was walking towards his computer and changing slides on the PowerPoint. His insincere actions showed disrespect to the man who he had been trying to convince. The woman finished her lunch and asked a question regarding a local issue and offered a way that she thought would be fitting to move the issue forward; he once again cut her off and blatantly denied her idea and substituted it with his own opinion. After his reaction to the two questions being posed, the audience seemed more hesitant to ask questions.

Barclay appealed to the ethos of the audience by his seeming professional and experience on the subject. The introduction of Barclay from a representative from the University of Denver and a little bit of background information tried to ease the audience into trusting him as a valid source. At the start of Barclay’s presentation he passed out a fifteen page article that he had written reporting on all the relevant cases on this topic. He said that he would be able to answer any questions on any particular event after his presentation. The forty five minute speech earned nods and questions from the audience on both specific examples and general theories. Barclay’s proposed that there were no activist judges for same-sex marriage. He did not blame this on the courts but the relationship between the legislature and the courts. He challenged this relationship as jeopardizing the efficiency and the legitimacy of the law making and enforcing system. The link between these two branches enables both sides to step out of the line of fire and bounce the responsibility of decisions back and forth.

Barclay offered an array of information, statistics, and analysis of old documents and past judicial examples to support his reasoning that there are no activist judges because they tend to reflect the legislative decisions. His use of statistics and specific examples helped to develop a stronger argument. Without strong background this argument is hard to create because it is so complex. The relationship between courts and the legislature is challenging to establish without analyzing multiple past cases. Barclay’s evidence supported his claim and he was able to better sway his audience. His examples were deeply imbedded in the knowledge of the situation and they were too complicated for me to follow and understand fully. Maybe since I was not his target audience the rest of the people he was trying to convince were more able to follow his ideas and his examples. I feel like more background on the topic at the beginning of his PowerPoint would have been a good investment to appeal to a broader audience. A slide or two could have easily caught me up on the topic while not boring those who are better versed on the topic.

The rhetorical situation was established through the amount and relevance of the cases being analyzed. This debate has been alive for forty-five years, and within the last fifteen years there has been a shift in the popular initiatives. There is a large possibility of appeal to pathos in this topic. Those who support same-sex marriage are usually very strong in their opinions. This is not an issue that people take lightly from either side. The lack of pathos in Barclay’s presentation severely decreased his effectiveness and was an area where he could have been much more persuasive. His presentation was strictly based on the court decisions and legislation on the topic. He used a specific slide that had every change in policy or important court case on same-sex marriage for the last fifty years. His examples were very impressive and thought provoking on his argument, though if he was to introduce an appeal to pathos his argument would be much stronger.

The introduction to the presentation set up the speaker as a person with a high level of expertise on the subject of same-sex marriage. His level of experience did not help him to relate the information to the entire audience effectively. Barclay finished the presentation on a negative note because of the way that he responded to his audience’s concerns and interests. He came across as just presenting evidence and did not take advantage of the possibility of appeals to pathos that could have greatly strengthened his argument.