REASONED DEBATE

Like an evenly matched, long-married couple, Maine voters are about to hash over a sensitive but unresolved subject again, raising all the familiar arguments, resentments and wounded feelings, while rarely acknowledging the perspective of the other. But in this debate over whether to keep sexual orientation in the protected status of Maine’s human rights law, what remains to be said through letters to the editor, editorials and op-ed commentary should be said this time without the standard personal attacks, stereotypes or general threats of doom.

For instance, we regularly receive letters that assert people who oppose protections for homosexuals hate gays. Conversely, some writers warn that homosexuality is essentially an unsavory social club looking for new membership, which the legal protection would help provide.

Maybe some people do hate gays, but not all or even most of the large number of those who oppose the legal protection do or life for homosexuals here would be considerably worse. The social-club theory suggests that people with heterosexual instincts can, through an act of the Legislature, be fooled into believing they prefer sexual relations with those of their own gender. Lawmakers can’t even fool people into believing they’ve reformed taxes; they are decidedly unlikely to deceive them on anything more important.

These assertions are used simply to demonize an opponent, to persuade people to join your side by describing how awful the alternative is. It is a tactic we believe readers have heard more than often enough.

A handy book called “The Elements of Reasoning” – and if this debate needs anything, it is reasoning – says hopefully, “Reasoning rarely happens during shouting matches or on television talk shows. Reasoning is not a matter of winning or losing, of pressing 1 for Yes or 2 for No. Reasoning does not merely ask: Are you for it or against it? … Reasoning is as much about agreement as conflict, cooperation as discord, identification as division.”

Reasoning in the case before Maine voters focuses on this question: “Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation?” That is what voters will see on their ballots in November and what commentary on these pages should consider. What has occurred or is occurring that makes this protection necessary or unnecessary? What has been the result in other states when similar legislation has become law?

Maine has been debating this question for so long that any fresh and thoughtful argument, calmly ex-pressed, would shock the other side and perhaps change the outcome of the vote. Certainly, the alternatives of dire warnings and threats have been thoroughly unsuccessful. These pages look forward to submissions in this campaign that use careful reasoning to surprise opponents into resolution of this long-standing issue.