Connotation VS Denotation

"You cannot redefine a timeless institution. Marriage is what it is"

Those words are published on the Alliance Defense Fund website. The group is to the right wing what the ACLU is to liberals. It funds lawsuits and court battles intended, in general, to curtail civil rights with the goal of ensuring that the civil and criminal justice systems are in fact unjust, weighted in favor of a Christian world view. Who gets to define that Christian world view is ostensibly the world body of Christians. However, just as in politics (or other faiths, for that matter) it is the extremists who in fact determine the Christian Agenda. If only that phrase sent as many chills down the spine of the American public as the phrase, "the gay agenda."

The "you cannot redefine" argument has also been quoted by nearly every lawmaker opposed to legalized same-sex marriages, including the illegitimate president. Mr. Bush is fond of inventing and misusing words, as we all know, but wasn't it his administration that also redefined "torture" and "prisoner of war?" Oh...his secretary of defense, Mr. Rumsfeld also prefers the more obscure, arcane definition of "slog."

Several years ago, even G. Gordon Liddy, one of the more intelligent, if a bit quirky, social conservatives currently living within our nation's borders, used the "definition defense." When I heard him quote the Oxford (or was it Webster's) English Dictionary definition of "husband" to justify his bigotry, I just sadly shook my head. Mr. Liddy, perhaps more than Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush and the leaders of ADF, understands that English is a living language, and definitions change with time and usage. Simply by using "marriage" to mean a union of either a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, we (the people) redefine marriage. Currently, it has already taken on such connotations. Denotation will follow in a matter of years, particularly with the liberal way Webster has added new terms in the last decade. I mean liberal in its denotative sense, of course, meaning "generous", as well as "not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms." *

Mr. Bush also said, "is weakened if it is treated as a strictly legal contract, because it loses its cultural, religious and natural roots." Hmm...what a very problematic statement! Mr. Bush knows of course, that state and federal marriages are in fact just legal contracts. Religion has no legitimate role in the debate (although in reality it is the primary reason for not allowing same-sex marriage), as we are free to practice or not practice any religion we choose. Choice...now that's another subject altogether, for another blog entry. However, that does bring us to the matter of "natural." Mr. Bush and most other homophobes seem to not know, or perhaps they just discount, the fact that homosexuality is pervasive in nature. Take for instance, the The New York Aquarium's gay (and monogamous) penguin couple, Wendell and Cass. Or, Central Park Zoo's gay penguins, Silo and Roy, who also have a foster child. Read their stories here. The Jerusalem Zoo has gay vultures. Jane Goodall documented bisexuality frequently among her chimps. Scientists have studied rams that only mate with other rams (take that, Dodge!) Even that bastion of conservatism, BYU, found in studies involving rats, that sexual orientation can be determined biologically. The examples and scientific studies go on and on. So, when Mr. Bush says "natural roots," he is not even connotatively correct (feign shock here, please). Homosexuality both has roots in nature (i.e., genetics, hormone chemistry, brain development) and frequently occurs in nature.

The failure among conservatives with higher brain function to acknowledge homosexuality's place in nature has lead to some tragic results, and not only for humans. Many homosexuals have been beaten to death simply because of their orientation; but a year or so ago, we also ran a story about a guy who beat his dog's skull in, because he thought the dog was gay.

Of course, the "definition defense" isn't the only justification bigots use to oppose same-sex marriage. For instance, Texas State Representative Suzanna Hupp, who told me she had many gay friends, also told me the cost of providing benefits for same-sex partners would devastate our economy. Missy...Republican tax-breaks for the rich have already destroyed our economy, not to mention our public education system. Some poor Polyanna in California was caught on tape saying, "if we allow gay marriage, soon there won't be anyone left for regular marriage." I guess she's one of the many women who thinks she "saved" her husband from homosexuality. The ADF, quoted atop this blog posting, the shrub, and the legions of other bigots have said that permitting gay marriage would deprive children of having both a mother and a father. Ahem. My husband's daughter (notice I redefined husband just then) still has both a mother and a father. Furthermore, if it weren't for all the bigotry through the years, many of those gay dads would have never gotten married and had children in the first place. I can't speak for the lesbians out there, but I suspect many are in fem/butch pairs that could probably offer any child all the benefits that a male/female household would. If Mr. Bush and the ADF were implying that only heterosexual, married couples should be allowed to adopt (a standard not currently in place in any state that I'm aware of), do they really feel that all those orphaned children rejected by such ideal couples are better off not having any parents at all?

Any argument against legalized same-sex marriage can be picked apart. Of course Washington, D.C. is a place that derives its power from your fear and from the inherent bigotry of the masses, rather than logic. All we can do is use the power of our words to defeat the false prophets...and to turn their own words against them.