Blog Paper

Robin Lakoff describes the American political and social structure as a language war, even going so far as to call her book The Language War. While I don’t see the language itself as something hostile and harmful, political rhetoric surrounding civilian issues possesses some war-like qualities. It is decisive. Two distinct sides are often created: conservative or liberal. And people on both sides feel they are right and can’t see how the “other” can possibly think a different way.
The debate regarding the constitutional ban on gay marriages displays several rhetorical strategies. One of the most interesting is an appeal to common sense, as discussed by Lakoff. Lakoff denounces the universal reliance on common sense, saying that common sense is not universal.
On March 23, 2004, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing regarding a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Cass Sunstein and Katherine Spaht, both law professors, offered their testimony. Spaht defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, stating that “Every dictionary defines marriage in those well understood, millennia-old terms.” Sunstein, addressing the same committee on the same day, argued that a constitutional ban was unnecessary, saying “…the proposed amendment would respond to an old and familiar problem that has heretofore been settled…at the state level.”
Both arguments are modified common sense, and both have the same flaws. Spaht’s dictionary definition argument acts on a general principle: the dictionary defines words. Of course, dictionaries may differ on their definition of marriage. Sunstein asserts that the federal government should not get involved in marriage because it is a state issue. However, as No Child Left Behind shows us, the federal government doesn’t always respect traditional boundaries.
During the presidential debates in the 2004 election, many people thought both candidates made a huge deal out of this issue. Often times, people would say “Why are they arguing about gay marriage? There is a war going on!” Ian Angus, in his book Emergent Publics would say that the government tells people which issues are important, rather than the other way around.
Interestingly, of all three presidential debates totaling about 55 questions, the two candidates only had to answer one question about gay marriage. That’s less than 2%. Even though the candidates may not have made gay marriage a big issue at the debates, other groups who considered it an important issue may have helped the campaign.
For example, churches considered this issue very important. And, in a way, isn’t this what Angus wanted? Angus said that people should have access to public places where they could discuss politics.
Maybe Angus is wrong. Do politicians present us, the public, with what issues they deem worthy? Or do they mention issues because a large number of people will make a fuss over them? It might have been a diversion from the war in Iraq, but we created the diversion.