NAME THAT MARRIAGE: Sarah Woods and David Blankenhorn

[In response to Blankenhorn's earlier post on the term "traditional marriage"--"Like we are busily crusading for 1950s-style gender roles, or favor trying to go back to marriage forms that existed in earlier eras.  That is pretty much the opposite of what I and I think the great majority of my colleagues actually favor."]

Regarding the problems connected with the new usage and meaning of the term "traditional marriage," Sarah Woods writes in to suggest taking the offensive and finding an adjective that works.  She offers and critiques some possible alternatives: Healthy marriage ("I know you don't like it.")
Authentic marriage  ("I don't like it")  
Historic marriage ("too close to 'traditional'")
Stable marriage ("nah, healthy is better than that")
Robust marriage ("implies gays are anemic")
Evocative marriage ("can live with it ... captures the sense of high calling, sensuality, and ancient connection of heterosexual marriages while affirming the progressive movement towards gender equality")

She concludes: "I just think you've got to go on the offense here.  Put something out that you can live with.  Define it, justify it and push for it.  Or live with the frustration of having editors do it for you."

I take her point, and maybe her suggestion is a good one. But to me, any time we have to put an adjective in front of it, a qualifier of some kind, we lose.  Big, old, primary institutions have simple noun-names that everyone knows.  Having to stick even a nice adjective in front of it in order to make yourself understood is a sign that something is not right.

Sincerely yours -- the friendly, non-threatening David Blankenhorn

link

posted by Eve at 6:10 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home