Zach Wahls: What Makes a Successful Speech?

by Alex Bleiberg

By this time, most of us have seen the speech Zach Wahls gave before the Iowa House of Representatives. More than a month after Zach’s testimony, it is worth examining what made the speech effective.

In his interview with Shira Sazar of CNN, Wahls explained what made his speech resonate.

“This is an issue that we talk about so much, and it’s really easy to talk about it without putting a face to it, but something I bring to the table is that I’m a face with this issue,” Wahls said.

During his interview with Rainbow Rumpus, Zach elaborated: “The opposition [to gay marriage] is coming from, and the numbers will back this up, people who don’t closely know, or realize that they closely know, a gay family member, or a close friend who is gay,” he said.

Zach cited a study showing that people who had close relationships with a gay person were around five times more likely to support gay marriage. And it’s true that part of why Zach’s speech was so compelling was that he made the consequences of the gay marriage debate tangible and immediate.

But perhaps Zach himself constituted the most powerful argument marshaled against the gay marriage ban. By both articulating and embodying his argument, he delivered a rhetorical double-shot. He presented himself as an argument for why gay marriage should be celebrated rather than feared.

Among some rights activists, certain ambivalence attaches to the argument that LGBT families are just like other families, and that kids of LGBT parents are just as successful and well-adjusted as “normal” kids. Such arguments implicitly present non-LGBT families as an aspired-toward ideal.

But what made Zach’s speech so effective wasn’t just the impressive list of accomplishments it contained, but his defiance in speaking on his own behalf and in his own voice.

Allowing every individual to speak in his or her own voice is a longstanding and cherished American principle. Zach’s voice has been shaped by his experience growing up with lesbian parents. By addressing the legislature in his own voice, Zach placed opponents of gay marriage in the position of being opposed to this fundamental ideal.

Ultimately, too few legislators were swayed to change the outcome of the vote. Perhaps, however, in the court of public opinion, Zach’s speech will have a more decisive effect.