I was perusing CNN’s new and exciting website overhaul and came across this article talking about Maine’s upcoming vote on maintaining their recent legalization of same-sex marriage:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/25/maine.same.sex/index.html
I was reading through it rather ho-hum. Same general rhetoric being exchanged, although I was (and have been ever since he made his decision) appreciative of Maine’s governor, Baldacci, because of his considered decision to sign the bill into law. Now that law is going on the voting block. Anyway, as I read I found myself struck by the following:
“‘Question one on the ballot offers Mainers a choice, and the choice is whether to keep marriage legally defined … or to take that definition and replace it with a radical definition,’ said Stand for Marriage Maine communications director Scott Fish.”
Stand for Marriage Maine is the group advocating repeal of the law (i.e. fighting to return to a traditional definition of marriage).
What I found so striking is his opting for the term “radical.” I’m sure his usage was innocent. I’m sure he was just trying to contrast the “traditional” definition of marriage (whatever that means) with what marriage became under the recently adopted law. But I could not help but chuckle at his word choice.
Consider the definitions of the word “radical” as found in the Oxford English Dictionary (with particular attention to the third definition):
radical |ˈradikəl|
adjective
1 (esp. of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough : a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework.
• forming an inherent or fundamental part of the nature of someone or something : the assumption of radical differences between the mental attributes of literate and nonliterate peoples.
• (of surgery or medical treatment) thorough and intended to be completely curative.
• characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive : a radical approach to electoral reform.
2 advocating thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party : a radical American activist.
• (of a measure or policy) following or based on such principles.
3 of or relating to the root of something, in particular
• Mathematics of the root of a number or quantity.
• denoting or relating to the roots of a word.
• denoting the semantic or functional class of a Chinese character.
• Music belonging to the root of a chord.
• Botany of, or springing direct from, the root or stem base of a plant
Now, as I said, I’m sure Mr. Fish meant something akin to the first two definitions. That is the more usual rhetorical usage. However, it is the third definition that is its technical usage. In fact, the etymological sense of the term is found in this third definition. So, the flavor of the word when used pejoratively as Mr. Fish did (something is quite different from the status quo) is such that it involves a returning to the one’s roots.
Ironic. No?
Mr. Fish advocates a maintaining of the “traditional” definition of marriage instead of doing something so outlandish as returning to marriage’s “radical” definition. Probably a good call considering what the tradition of marriage truly entails (see my note on the History of Marriage: http://wp.me/pGvfU-F).
No, Mr. Fish. Let us agree to not make radical definitions of marriage. There is no need to take steps back into bigotry, sexism, classism, racism, and/or heterosexism, as you are advocating. Instead, we should embrace the expansion of the institution of marriage as we know it. This has been happening for millennia now. Why impede progress? Why prevent inclusion? Why stagnate love?
Oh, right. Because Mr. Fish, the metonym, feels those are all radical.
4 [usu. as exclam. ] informal very good; excellent : Okay, then. Seven o’clock. Radical!
