Another day, another recommended diary with uncritical use of the term 'gay marriage.'
This has to be one of the shrewdest manipulations of political language in recent memory ... just look at how many pro-equality activists and bloggers, particularly here on DKos, use it without a second thought.
Language doesn't control thought, of course, but can push it really hard if used the right way. Right-wing groups, stuffed as they are with marketing pros, have understood this for ages. Take the 'estate tax,' paid by the wealthiest of the wealthy. Only spoiled rich kids inherit 'estates,' but we all die, so call it the 'death tax' and bingo, instant groundswell of angry voters crying for the ultra-rich to be freed from their heavy burden.
They use language to keep LGBT equality off the table, too. Call the move for outlawing anti-LGBT bias in the workplace a grab for 'special rights.' Two little words, and you short-circuit the effort from the get-go. Want to pass a law to keep committed same-gender partners out of hospitals, funeral homes, and probate court? Call it the "Defense of Marriage Act" and lawmakers will beat down the door to take it home to their districts.
Then there's "gay marriage." This has to be the shrewdest manipulation of language in years for the simple reason that so many pro-equality activists have swallowed it whole. Look through the law books in places where same-gender couples can marry, and you won't find the word "gay" anywhere. "Gay marriage" keeps same-gender couples in a box, safely apart from everyone else, and most people will gladly vote to keep a tight lid on that box.
Voters act on images formed in their minds, more often than not unfairly. Together, the words "gay" and "marriage" call up two bull dykes or two leather daddies feeding each other wedding cake. This will change with time, but for now, too many people will line up at the polling places for a chance to say "Eeew."
We have a shot at winning on this issue in Massachussetts, where voters may soon be asked to overturn marriage equality. This might be due less to Bay State voters being "ultra-liberal," which they aren't really, than to the way our side is framing the question as one of "equality."
How many people would openly say they're against everyone having the same rights under law? That's just un-American. Look on our side's main Web site, www.massequality.org, and you'll find "equality" everywhere, not far from "gay" or "lesbian," but you'll hardly find "gay marriage" at all.
This is why I'm worried about the upcoming battles over new anti-marriage amendments and, in the states that already have them, over adoption by LGBT people. "Gay adoption" is already the ruling turn of phrase among pro-equality activists, giving voters and lawmakers a nice, tight box for all us queers. Some on our side are talking about the issue as one of "gay rights" instead of calling up the very real image of children in need languishing in foster care and group homes.
In politics and in life, perception is reality, images are perception, and words are images.