Alex Blaze

Marriage redefined

Filed By Alex Blaze | March 18, 2009 10:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, The Movement
Tags: language, marriage, merriam-webster dictionary, religious right

Via JMG, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary updated their definition of the word "marriage" to reflect common usage of the term, which now includes same-sex couples:

definition.jpg

So now the Religious Right will stop using quotation marks when they discuss homosexual "marriage," right? I mean, it's not like it's kinda/maybe/sorta like marriage anymore. America's greatest dictionary says it is.

But what else could the dictionary folks do? With Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, Spain, and South Africa giving same-sex couples marriages, and Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California doing so in the US this past year, the definition of the word has obviously changed.

The definition still isn't all that great, what with the "like traditional marriage." Last time I checked, they were using the same paperwork for all marriages in Connecticut and Massachusetts. This isn't a simile, it's the same thing.

But the right-wing is going to go crazy with this one, if any of them bothered to read. Remember this video?

The only argument they have against same-sex marriage is that it's not the "definition" of marriage. (Which obviously means that they view the definition of marriage as a man getting a woman as a servant, even though they never articulate it quite like that....) So, um, they just lost that argument as well.

And they know it. Here, for your amusement, are actual Freeper comments:

A huge assault on our culture by the liberals. Orwell's nightmare is becoming a reality.

I am sure Daniel Webster would be jumping for joy over this.

Sure, surrender one word. Then they take a sentence. Soon they'll own the whole language and we'll have no choice but to speak Spanish. Then they'll want Spanish too.

It has bugged me for years to hear "anti-gay-marriage-ers" speak of being opposed to "gay marriage" when there simply ain't no such animal. Why, it's like being opposed to "round squares" or "free-range unicorns"!

Webster's reflects common usage, and "gay marriage" has become commonly used even by those who oppose the nonsensical idea. Who couldn't see this coming?

God, I believe, has His own dictionary and I don't think it would agree with Webster's version

Who cares what the leftists writing Webster's dictionary think?

Recent Entries Filed under The Movement:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


The Freepers should be happy with the new definition.

I would have preferred that the new dictionary definition be "the state of being united to another person as a spouse in a consensual or contractual relationship recognized by law."

I'm with you, Steve. Whassup with the "separate but equal" definition of marriage?