Don't think of an elephant

            -3- What's in a Word? Plenty, If it's Marriage

George Lakoff picked a controversial topic among conservatives and progressives. He used marriage to illustrate the differences between the two parties.

He starts the chapter giving a North American definition of marriage: marriage as an institution, the public expression of lifelong commitment. However, it is not marriage itself which is controversial; it is marriage between individuals of the same sex. Conservatives have put on the table two important concepts: definition and sanctity. According to the author, what progressives have to do is fight the definition of marriage and sanctity given by Republicans and create their new concepts.  Democrats think that the idea of marriage as a concept for heterosexual unions is just a cultural stereotype. Lakoff thinks that marriage evokes the idea of sex, and Americans do not approve gay sex; under this conception, gay people are not “marriage material” since they are supposedly wild, deviant and have irresponsible lifestyle.

What is interesting is the suspicion that Lakoff has about the choice of George W. Bush to not use the term gay marriage in his State of the Union address. He suspects that Bush would not call marriage to civil unions between gay people, because marriage is exclusively for a man and a woman; it would be as senseless as saying “gay apple or gay telephone”.

“Contemporary conservative politics turns theses family values into political values: hierarchical authority, individual discipline, military might”; following the same line, marriage in the strict family must be heterosexual marriage. On the other hand, the nurturant parent model has two equal, protective and caring parents, who teach their children to take care of others.

Civil unions are a threat to conservatives because they create families that do not follow the strict family model. Lakoff suggests leaving civil unions to the state and marriages to the churches, as it is done in Vermont. However, I don’t think progressive activists will be willing to give up on their desire to have “gay marriages” with all the social and cultural connotations. Regardless of my personal values, I applaud Lakoff’s ability to use metaphoric language to illustrate and simplify the political values of both parties.