Friday, May 29, 2009

The Definition of Marriage

I was curious about this so I decided to look up the actual definition of the word in several dictionaries.

According to Random House Dictionary 2009 :
"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."
According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Dictionary 2009:
"the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife"
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1998:
"legal union of a man and woman for life, as husband and wife."
Merriam-Websters Dictionary of Law 1996:
"the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dis solvable only by law.."
So the word marriage clearly is defined by a union between a man and a woman.

However....

According to the American Heritage Dictionary 2009:
The word civil union is defined as "a legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority."
Civil union is defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica 2008 as:
"legal recognition of the committed, marriagelike partnership of two individuals....provides the couple with legal benefits that...are equivalent to those of marriage, such as rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decision making....and employee benefits for partners and dependents."
So this whole fight is about a word. A word for crying out loud.

Red and I spoke in some decent length about this subject on my post All Men Created Equal.

I am starting to understand less and less why the people fighting over this issue can't just be happy with a civil union. It provides the same rights as a marriage. It just isn't called marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman and Civil Union is (generally) between a couple of the same sex but they basically mean the same exact thing!

I can't believe I am saying this but quit your darn whining and be happy with what you have. This is NOT a separate but equal issue. The fight is all because of a WORD!!!

Let's just move on.

7 comments:

  1. Good article, Otter. I honestly believe there is a reason why they are insisting on redefining marriage, instead of being satisfied with civil unions. It's all about making themselves look as normal as possible. They want their type of relationship to be equatable to the relationship between a man and a woman and changing the definition of marriage is one way they can accomplish that.

    I have been told time after time that it is all about equal rights and that is not the truth. It's all about normalizing a homosexual relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yup, rational thought on display.

    When others are telling us traditional marriage folks "it's just a 'word' so give it up", you understand that the same thing applies to gays even more so.

    btw- If it's just a word, why do they need it so desperately?

    Larry nailed it... sanction, endorsement, normalization.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is pretty pathetic. Steve has hit the nail on the head with this issue. And besides, homosexual marriage IS something that has happened throughout history. The Greeks and Romans all had legal gay marriage. In fact the Spartan military would have joy fine episodes on guy on guy booty calls prior to battle. They found that it built strength among the soldiers.

    Bottom line is that homosexual couples are not afforded the same legal rights are heterosexual couples and that is not only unconstitutional, but it is un-American.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Uhh dave... steve said homosexuals should get over it and accept civil unions and leave traditional marriage alone.

    There is no law against equal but separate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My goat Muwamba is of South African orgin and his owner before me had him weathered (neutered for people in blue states) and my Ram named King Kukamuga will occoisionly make moves on Muwamba which Muwamba is not happy about as he is chased around my palatial two acres.
    My question is this: Should I prohibit this pitcher/catcher thing as cross species sexual harrasment?
    If Muwamba gets tagged would that be an uncivilunion?

    I must be getting senile to post such trash as this. Oh well I offend some by just being still alive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Whoops. My bad. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's no biggie dave... sometimes we all read one thing and hear something else in the brain... happens to me all the time.

    Prolly explains why my opinion differs from the prevailing wisdom much of the time.

    ReplyDelete