As same-sex marriage discussion makes its way through the Supreme Court, there is no shortage of opinions and commentaries. California Attorney General Kamala Harris comments on the impending decision from the court, "the correct outcome would be that same-sex marriage would be ..."
The rest of the quote is inconsequential because you can reach a conclusion by the second word.
When- ever debate takes place over a divisive issue, the two vocal sides of the debate seem to favor the position of "I'm right and you're wrong." AG Harris' comment, "the correct outcome," can only lead to one result: "I'm right and you're wrong." Both sides of the argument passionately believe that their side is the correct outcome.
Why haven't we had any discussion of what outcome can be mostly correct for both sides? That might actually bring people together rather than actively drive a divide in the union. In order to achieve compromise, sometimes you need to agree that "I don't know everything" or "your idea is actually better than mine."
For most of us, this is no problem, but for party loyalists, it's easier to take an arrow to the knee than to utter these simple comments of human kindness.