Tammy Plunkett

 

Articles and Essays


Aspiring Author


Asking the Many to Decide for the Few

By Tammy Plunkett

 

During the historical election held on November 4th, 2008 when Americans voted for their first African-American President, another important question was posed on the California state ballot. Proposition 8 was a referendum type question that asked the population of California to vote on whether marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman, thus eliminating the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Proposition 8 passed by a vote of 52.1% for and 47.9% against (Bowen). The proponents to Proposition 8, sponsored by the organization called ProtectMarriage.com, say they are opposed to same-sex marriage because it redefines the institution of marriage, and because legalizing same-sex marriage will translate to children being taught about homosexuality in school, and because the decision was made by judges instead of by the people (ProtectMarriage.com). The opponents, led by the Equality for All organization, deny all these claims. Putting religious and partisanship views aside, one has to beg the question on how a public majority vote can ever protect the interests of a minority group.

The first question that we need to address is: What is the institution of marriage? Institutions “are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals” (Wikipedia, 2008, Institution ¶ 1) and marriage “is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals” (Wikipedia, 2008, Marriage ¶ 1). In other words, the proponents of Proposition 8 believe that if men were to marry men, for instance, the behaviours of that married couple would alter the presently defined social order and prescribed behaviours governed by society and most religions. In essence they oppose change. In response, let us look at the evolution of marriage rituals over the millennia. In ancient times, and in many different civilizations, “marriage and divorce required no specific government or religious approval” (Wikipedia, 2008, Marriage History ¶ 4), thus removing the institutionalization of marriage all together. Yet, marriage evolved to where the Catholic doctrine states: “…there can never be an absolute divorce…” (Lehmkuhl, 1909, ¶ 2), and The United Church of Canada believes that a marriage can be dissolved by divorce (2008, FAQ no. 7). Hence, if marriage can evolve from an ungoverned state to an institution where different groups in society hold different beliefs and behaviours, can the institution not evolve to include homosexual individuals participating in their different behaviours?

ProtectMarriage.com’s second objection is as quoted  here from their website: “because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners.” (Why vote yes, ¶ 3). This emotionally charged objection used the precedence of Massachusetts, the only other State in America to have legalized same-sex marriages, where a teacher read her grade two class a picture book titled King and King which described the fairytale courtship and marriage of two princes (MassResistance, 2006). However, ProtectMarriage.com failed to explain that the existing California law prohibits that a “child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school” (No on 8, Fact vs. Fiction ¶ 3). Besides the fact that education was not mentioned at all in the wording of Proposition 8, bringing up the issue of what children are taught in schools reinforces ProtectMarriage.com’s stance with regards to the institution of marriage. Children are the seedlings to our society, and teaching them about new social structures and behaviours does have the potential of creating acceptance of new ideas. Can we as a society agree that the existence of homosexual relationships will not eradicate the existence of heterosexual relationships? What then is the danger of teaching children about an evolving institution?

It would only be fair to include here the view of the opponents to Proposition 8. In a statement posted on their website on November 6th, 2008 they expressed sadness over their defeat in “this struggle for freedom and this fight to have their relationships treated equally” (No on 8, Home ¶ 5). We have to keep in mind that these are individuals with every-day lives who merely want to feel accepted in society. We use blanket terms like “protecting an institution”, but we also have to consider the individuals whose relationships are in the balance. This leads to the third objection.

In a democracy like the United States of America, during a monumental election year, to put forth the argument that voters’ decisions are more important that those of four judges makes complete and total sense. How often have we heard Lincoln’s famous words: “government of the people, by the people, for the people”? (1863, ¶ 4) After all, that is the point of a democracy—majority rule. Yet, a government cannot function if every single action it takes, every single pardon granted, every single law passed is put forth for a public vote. The amount of time, and manpower hours required would result in absolute gridlock. That is why the general public elects government representatives who they can remove from office if they are unhappy with, and in America judges are voted into office by the people with majority rule.

This is where the consideration for the minority group and the individual in a same-sex relationship comes in. By definition, a minority group is too small in numbers to pass a majority vote; therefore, their rights must be protected by the elected government. Imagine if a popular vote asking if blacks deserve equal rights was taken the day before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus in 1955, or a vote asking if abortion should be legal in the midst of Roe vs. Wade in 1973, or a vote on if Aboriginals should be given free land in Canada immediately following the Oka crisis in 1990—none of these groups’ interests would have been protected. 

Change is never an easy undertaking and asking a culture to embrace a change that affects an institution that is at the very heart of our most intimate relationship—the family—is enormous.  However, as difficult as that change might be, the collective of society has to protect the rights of minorities by allowing our elected officials the permission to do so. After all, if a country can rise above segregation and a mere forty years later elect an African-American president, maybe there is hope that the institution of marriage can evolve to include homosexuals. All creeds drinking from the same water fountain did not cause the dissolution of the United States of America, and allowing gay marriage probably will not alter the fabric of American culture either.  

 

References

Bowen, D. (2008). California general election. Proposition 8 - Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Retrieved November 22, 2008 from Secretary of State website http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.html

 

Lehmkuhl, A. (1909). Divorce (in moral theology). In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from New Advent:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

 

Lincoln, A. (1863). The Gettysburg address. Abraham Lincoln Online Speeches and Writings. Retrieved on December 1, 2008 from http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

 

MassResistance. (2006). Children's book portraying homosexual romance and marriage --read to second-grade class by teacher. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/king_and_king/book.html

 

No On 8, Equality for All. (2008). Vote no on prop 8. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from the home page and Fact vs. Fiction page from http://www.noonprop8.com/

 

ProtectMarriage.com. (2008). Yes on 8 protect marriages. Restoring marriages and protecting California children. Retrieved November 22,2008 from http://www.protectmarriage.com/about/why

 

The United Church of Canada. (2008). Covenant of Marriage and Life Partnership Commonly Asked Questions. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.united-church.ca/exploring/marriage/faq#7

 

Wikipedia. (2008) Institution. Retrieved on November 23, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution

 

Wikipedia. (2008) Marriage. Retrieved on November 23, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

 

 

 

 


What I’ve Learned About Writing So Far…

From One Newbie to Another

By Tammy Plunkett

 

During our local writers’ association chapter meeting this month, we sat around the table as usual announcing our accolades, the point in our meeting where we celebrate our progress and successes no matter how small, and as usual new members and guests told us what they wrote and what brought them to our meeting. But this month, as I listened to a guest describe herself as a clueless neophyte I realized how far I had come in the last two years. So I am writing this article to do what so many romance writers have done for me--pass on the knowledge.

 

The First Thing I Learned: POV

Point of View is, like the name implies, the viewpoint the reader is in when reading a passage. The hard and fast rule is you can only be in one person’s head at one time. I learned to stay in one POV per scene. Some authors write in one POV per chapter, and some will go so far as to do one per paragraph, but just because you’ve read a multi-published, multi-millionaire author’s book in which she “head hopped” doesn’t mean you can get away with it too. You will be told by many a critique partner and editor to not switch POV too quickly.  Oh, and when in your heroine’s POV she can not see herself blush, but she can feel it, she can’t describe her long blond hair and blue eyes, and looking at herself in the mirror to do so has been over done—a big no-no.

 

My Second Lesson: Repetitive Words, Passive Voice and the Dreaded LY-adverb.

In my first contest entry, a judge counted that I used the verb “looked” ten times in ten pages. Guilty as charged. Be careful of using your favorite expressions peppered throughout your manuscript: mine are “very”, “look”, and “feel”.  Passive voice also took over my first manuscript.  The “She was” and “He had” passages all circled in red by a critique partner can be a shocking revelation. My personal pet peeve is the LY-adverb. I am guilty of using them as much as anyone else, but I hate seeing them when I read. I just feel that it’s sometimes a lazy way to write when a better word could be used in its place. For example: “She angrily left the room.” can be written as “She stormed out in a huff.”

 

Third: GMC, Scene Purpose and Character Arcs

Where would we be without Debra Dixon’s “Goal, Motivation, and Conflict”? In a nutshell, your hero and heroine each need their own goals (opposing ones are best), motivation for said goals and internal and external conflicts that keep them from attaining their goals. Read the book or take a workshop—it’s invaluable. Every scene in your story has to have a purpose, that’s every scene, no matter how cute, funny or sensual. It has to move the story along or give insight into the characters--if not, drop it. Character arc means your characters have to grow throughout your story. They have to have a flawed belief in the beginning that, through conflict and obstacles, they learn is flawed and they have to adopt a new belief. Again, take a workshop or read a book on character arcs; your work will improve tenfold.

 

The Eye Opener: The Publishing Industry

Okay, so I have in my hands the best manuscript ever written. To whom do I send it? An Agent? An Editor? Which Agent? Which Editor? What do you mean what genre is my romance? It’s a romance is that not enough? It’s not enough. You need to know the product you are selling. (I learned that from Laurie Schnelby- Campbell, a very generous workshop instructor.) You need a blurb that reads like the back of a book, you need a hook, a catchy one-liner describing what’s different about your story, and you need a synopsis. That’s right, you need to condense that 85,000-word masterpiece into five pages, my friend. Then you need to send that blurb and hook out in a query letter to agents or editors interested in your type of romance, and wait, for about six months, with your fingers crossed that they ask for a partial (the first three chapters and the synopsis) or the full manuscript. Blanket queries are a waste of your postage stamps and agents/editor’s time. And they all speak to one another, so they’ll know you’re doing it. And that’s a reputation you want to avoid. Everyone has an opinion about whether you should find an agent before approaching publishers. Some publishers, like Harlequin, have a standard contract with very little for an agent to negotiate with, whereas other publishers won’t read your material unless your agent approaches them on your behalf. You’ll have to go with your gut and comfort level on that one. As for how much you can expect to get paid… no one is telling. There are websites that give ballpark figures (Karen Fox has one), but you will be lucky to find any authors who will give you a straight answer about how much money they made on a book sale.

 

Last but Most Important: Writers’ Associations and Critique Partners

There is no way that I would be writing as well as I am today if it weren’t for joining RWA, and my local chapter, Ottawa Romance Writers’ Association (ORWA), and the online From the Heart Romance Writers chapter (FTHRW). On-line, I have been able to take workshops and participate in exercises and chats about the industry, and in my local chapter I have found a home. I have found like-minded people to share my triumphs and disappointments. I have found that all writers are at times disenchanted with the whole process of writing but push-on anyway. And I have found the most giving bunch of ladies willing to share every ounce of knowledge they have accumulated along the way. Critique partners do the same, just with a red pen in hand. As intimidating as it may feel to let someone read the most intimate workings of your mind and soul, your critique partner is your best tool for producing your best work; use her well, and buy her lots of chocolate.

 

These are but a few of the lessons this beginner has learned. I do hope they help another fledgling on her journey of completing a manuscript and becoming a published author.

Home
Read an excerpt
Your Comments
About Me
Contact Me
Articles
Links