The War of Words

As we continue to wage the War in Iraq, the War on Terror, the War on Christians and the War on Christmas, a few weeks ago the Senate passed a law that declared the launch of a new war that may be more important than all of those other wars combined -- the War of Words. The law declaring that English is the national language of the United States was an attempt to head off the frightening prospect of Americans being forced to learn foreign languages in schools, which might confuse them or even make them forget their native tongue. Child advocate John Derbyshire, for example, has warned of the horrors of bilingualism being forced on very young children in public schools. Many frightened parents have chosen to pull their children out of public schools and begun to homeschool them in order to avoid the compulsory instruction in foreign languages. But protecting English was just the first battle in the all-important War of Words.

This week the Senate is debating another assault on our language, The Federal Marriage Amendment, which White House press secretary Tony Snow has compared to Civil Rights legislation. The co-opting of the word marriage to apply to same-sex couples is an assault on the very fabric of our society. As I have written before, I and many other supporters of this amendment have no problem with same-sex couples being granted civil unions and other legal rights. And, of course, supporting this amendment to the Constitution is in no way homophobic. It is not homosexuals we object to, but their attempts to redefine the word marriage. This battle over semantics is nothing less than a fight to keep America "a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of its citizens," said President Bush, who has made passing this amendment a priority. If we allow homosexuals to succeed in their Orwellian attempt to politicize and redefine the word marriage, it will put us on a slippery slope to redefining every other word in the dictionary and words will lose their meanings. American society would reach a point where you could say just about anything and claim you mean something else.

The homosexuals, illegal immigrants and multiculturalists are trying to divide and conquer our society by launching an assault on our language and the nature meaning itself. They want us to deconstruct everything until every word means its opposite. If they have their way, there will be no such thing as good and evil. Everything will be relative. Black will be redefined as off-white and every issue will be seen in shades of gray. Instead of Us and Them, everyone will be Us. Without a Them who will be the enemy? Us, of course. Essentially, multiculturalism is just another word for anti-Americanism.

After the Senate debates the Federal Marriage Amendment it will take up another issue that lies at the very heart of what it means to be an American: The Anti-Flag Burning Amendment. Multiculuralists claim that the flag is just a symbol. But the American flag is symbolic of more than just symbolism. It is an emblem that is emblematic of our very way of life. The Supreme Court has declared that flag burning is speech. But if that is true, I wonder how the Court would feel about someone burning a flag in a crowded theater and yelling, "Fire!" If it is speech, it is particularly dangerous speech, and we shouldn't underestimate the threat that flag burning poses. After multicultural relativists have finished burning all of our flags, they will start burning our dictionaries so that we have no idea what words really mean and then they will burn our cities. This amendment is essentially a bulwark against the forces of semantic terrorism.

It may take a lot of amendments to the Constitution to protect our semantical heritage. But this issue is so important that I think the Senate should make it a priority to defend against these assaults on our language and symbols. After the Senate has finished debating the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Anti-Flag Burning Amendment, I would like to propose that they take up another amendment to battle against the redefinition of a term that has already taken root in our society. Here is my proposed text for this Amendment:

"SECTION 1. The word gay in the United States shall consist only of being happy. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that the word gay or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon homosexuals."

Unfortunately, it may already be too late to restore the meaning of the word gay because of so many years of inaction. But that doesn't mean the Senate shouldn't try. If Americans have one more way to express how happy they are, it may just be enough to reverse the current trend of dissatisfaction that polls say many are feeling today.

I don't want to mince words and claim the War of Words will be easy to win (in fact, come to think of it, we may have to pass an amendment to protect the word mince). The law making English our official national language and amendments to protect the flag and the words marriage and gay are just the first counterattacks in what promises to be a long, hard battle. Like the War on Terror, it may not end in our lifetime. There are a lot of words in the dictionary, which is why the Senate needs to make this its top priority. The Senate has its work cut out for it, but I think our legislators could make a lot of headway if they put aside all of their other business to concentrate on passing as many amendments as possible to protect our most essential words and symbols between now and election day.

Jon Swift, Homeland Security, War on Terror, Terrorism, Iraq, Bush, Christianity, Gay Marriage, Multiculturalism, English, Illegal Immigration, Federal Marriage Amendment, Flag Burning, Senate, Constitution, John Derbyshire, Tony Snow, Politics, Mark My Words OTA