Gay Marriage Recognized ... in Webster Dictionary

[Dos Equis]

Gay Marriage Recognized ... in Webster Dictionary

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO —  Same-sex marriage might not be recognized in most states, but it is in the dictionary.

Merriam-Webster included a secondary definition of marriage to recognize same-sex relationships several years before gay couples were allowed to tie the knot anywhere in the United States, but the change had gone largely unnoticed until the conservative World Net Daily news site reported it Tuesday.

"One of the nation's most prominent dictionary companies has resolved the argument over whether the term 'marriage' should apply to same-sex duos or be reserved for the institution that has held families together for millennia: by simply writing a new definition," World Net wrote in an online story published Tuesday.

In its Web and print editions, Merriam-Webster defines marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

But in a nod to evolving ideas of love and English usage, the Springfield, Mass.-based company in 2003 added a secondary meaning for "marriage" as "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

Merriam-Webster said in a statement Wednesday that the edited entry merely reflected the frequency with which the term "same-sex marriage" had popped up in print and become part of the general lexicon.

"Its inclusion was a simple matter of providing dictionary users with accurate information about all of the word's current uses," the company said, adding that it was surprised by the recent attention because it was "neither news nor unusual."

"We were one of the last ones among the major dictionary publishers to do this," said Merriam-Webster spokesman Arthur Bicknell.

Boston-based Houghton-Mifflin, publisher of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, modified its definition of marriage in 2000, adding a fourth example to the entry: "A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage."

The Oxford English Dictionary this month added in a draft version that the term sometimes refers to "long-term relationships between partners of the same sex." Its editors also have proposed updating the primary sense of the word to mean "the condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony."

The dictionary's main entry for marriage, last updated in 1989, reads, "The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between married persons; spousehood, wedlock."

Only two states in the country legally recognize gay marriage: Connecticut and Massachusetts.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509733,00.html

[Dos Equis]

The public doesn't want homosexual marriage, but that will eventually change. 

[LurkerNoMore]

The public 

Translation - bigots, narrowminded hillbillys and religious zealots.

Which as time marches on, those numbers are dying out at a faster rate.  Eventually there will be gay marriage.  No matter what your opinion or viewpoint is. 

Now when there is an openly queer SC judge appointed, that is when the fun is going to start in watching the conservatives cry their eyes out.

[shootfighter1]

Why can't gays just accept recognized civil unions where they are rewarded similar benefits to marriage.  Marriage has a definition already.  We have progressed far on this matter and recognize equal rights.  We should not change the definition of marriage.  We could just as easily leave it at that and move on.  Equal rights are whats important.

[LurkerNoMore]

Why can't gays just accept recognized civil unions where they are rewarded similar benefits to marriage.  Marriage has a definition already.  We have progressed far on this matter and recognize equal rights.  We should not change the definition of marriage.  We could just as easily leave it at that and move on.  Equal rights are whats important.

Beats me.  You would think so.

[Hedgehog]

I support the gays.
But how about they stop acting like fruitcakes?
The Liberace act is getting old - real old.
I love it when you have a gay couple - one being a twink and the other guy being normal - and you ask them who's the woman in the relationship.

The twink will get all catty and upset.

then they push the usual gay lobby BS:
'We don't want to conform to the hetero norm.' 
Oh brother.

[MCWAY]

Translation - bigots, narrowminded hillbillys and religious zealots.

You mean like the hillbillies in California that passed Prop. 8 just four months ago?

Or, did you mean the rednecks in Michigan who passed a marriage amendment in 2004?

Or perhaps you were citing those in Hawaii, who just marched on their state’s capitol to help put a civil union bill in political limbo?

Or there’s the amendment in the now-“blue” state of Florida, did you mean those folks?

The only place where gay “marriage” proponents have had success are states that are heavily politically controlled by liberals, with loads of red tape to cut, in order to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Once, an amendment goes to the people to vote, it passed, by an average margin of 68-32.

Which as time marches on, those numbers are dying out at a faster rate.  Eventually there will be gay marriage.  No matter what your opinion or viewpoint is. 

Yet, we never see any gay "marriage" supporters that are proactive enough to get constitutional amendments put on the ballot to re-define marriage.

They wait until their opponents put amendments up, keeping the traditional one-man-one-woman (1M-1W) definition, before they start hollering. Then, once they lose, they start bleating, whining, acting a fool, and (in some cases) defacing property, assaulting elderly people, and hurling racial slurs at ethnic groups who voted for the marriage amendment.

Like many others, you are counting on voter apathy, regarding this issue. But, that works both ways. If the younger folks don't care if the marriage laws get changed, they also WON'T care when constitutional amendments get passed to keep them as they are.

[Hereford]

Translation - bigots, narrowminded hillbillys and religious zealots.

Ya dude, 52% of California is hillbilly or religious zealots. 

Epic failure at trying to deamonize those who oppose your viewpoint.

[Hereford]

Why can't gays just accept recognized civil unions where they are rewarded similar benefits to marriage.  Marriage has a definition already.  We have progressed far on this matter and recognize equal rights.  We should not change the definition of marriage.  We could just as easily leave it at that and move on.  Equal rights are whats important.

Forcing their actions into the term 'marriage' devalues the term, and opens the way for precident for a whole lot of other things down the road. There really isn't any difference between a civil union and being married, just the piece of paper. the gey agenda just wants yet another thing to force down societies throat.

They already have equal rights. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else does.

[LurkerNoMore]

Ya dude, 52% of California is hillbilly or religious zealots. 

Epic failure at trying to deamonize those who oppose your viewpoint.

Epic failure at trying to use election stats in a Prez race to reflect true voter opinion on homosexuality.

Come back again when you can do better.

[LurkerNoMore]

Like many others, you are counting on voter apathy, regarding this issue.

HAHAHAA I am not counting on anything.  Two gay men exchanging vows for marriage neither offends or interests me at all.  Unlike some, if gay marriage becomes legal, I am not worried that I might find myself in one.

[MCWAY]

Epic failure at trying to use election stats in a Prez race to reflect true voter opinion on homosexuality.

Come back again when you can do better.

How silly of Hereford to judge true voter opinion on HOW THEY ACTUALLY VOTED ON ELECTION DAY, when the issue of marriage vs. gay "marriage" is on the line.

[Hereford]

The gay agenda believes that everyone feels the way they do, and if you don't then you are a bigot, hater, redneck, hillbilly, ignorant, religious zealot. etc., etc.   Never mind that gay issues in the ballot boxes fail 90% of the time, and that the only way they get anything passed is if they find a uber-liberal judge to force an issue through against the will of the rest of society.

[Dos Equis]

I'm sure that can be said about a lot of things at one time or another.  One of the earliest philosophies I learned went something like, "if you don't want people in your business, stay out of theirs even if you don't like it"  kind of a live and let live thing.  I guess it's a little libertarian.  The exception of course is if someone is being deprived of their rights or consent or harmed etc.  I've always held pretty strong to that concept as a cornerstone to my view of freedom.

I pretty much agree with this. 

[Dos Equis]

You mean like the hillbillies in California that passed Prop. 8 just four months ago?

Or, did you mean the rednecks in Michigan who passed a marriage amendment in 2004?

Or perhaps you were citing those in Hawaii, who just marched on their state’s capitol to help put a civil union bill in political limbo?

Or there’s the amendment in the now-“blue” state of Florida, did you mean those folks?

Or that bigoted, hillbilly, religious zealot Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, after it was passed by all those Democrats in Congress.  Or all the bigoted, hillbilly, religious zealots in arguably the most liberal state in the country (Hawaii) who passed a traditional marriage amendment by a 70 percent margin.  This is the same state that has only 2 Republicans in the State Senate and about 4 Republicans in the State House. 

But let's not get tripped up over the facts. 

[Soul Crusher]

Translation - bigots, narrowminded hillbillys and religious zealots.

Which as time marches on, those numbers are dying out at a faster rate.  Eventually there will be gay marriage.  No matter what your opinion or viewpoint is. 

Now when there is an openly queer SC judge appointed, that is when the fun is going to start in watching the conservatives cry their eyes out.

WE HAVE ENOUGH ISSUES TO WORRY ABOUT THAN THIS ONE!

 

[LurkerNoMore]

How silly of Hereford to judge true voter opinion on HOW THEY ACTUALLY VOTED ON ELECTION DAY, when the issue of marriage vs. gay "marriage" is on the line.

Awwww... you think?  But when it is pointed out the same rules apply for the Prolife group failing with their measures, suddenly it isn't "the majority being reflected at the ballots."

Typical conservative double speak.

[MCWAY]

The gay agenda believes that everyone feels the way they do, and if you don't then you are a bigot, hater, redneck, hillbilly, ignorant, religious zealot. etc., etc.   Never mind that gay issues in the ballot boxes fail 90% of the time, and that the only way they get anything passed is if they find a uber-liberal judge to force an issue through against the will of the rest of society.

And, you combine that with a state where the politicians use red tape to keep amendments from going to the ballot box (which is, perhaps, the only reason gay “marriage” is still legal in Mass.).

Awwww... you think?  But when it is pointed out the same rules apply for the Prolife group failing with their measures, suddenly it isn't "the majority being reflected at the ballots."

Typical conservative double speak.

Look who's talking!! You claimed that "bigots, hillbillies, rednecks, and religious zealots" were the ones passing these marriage amendments.

Again, explain the states of Hawaii, Michigan, and (most recently) California, HARDLY bastions of conservatism or GOP voters.

All of them passed marriage amendments, keeping the traditional definition of marriage as a 1M-1W union. Two of those states (HI, CA) did so AFTER their respective courts ruled the 1M-1W laws as "unconstitutional".

Several other "blue" states did that as well, including the now-"blue" Florida.

This issue transcends race, political party, religion, gender, economic status, and age, etc. And, when it's put to the people (AT THE BALLOT BOX, when it really matters), the answer is the same, over and over again: Marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

[LurkerNoMore]

Again, explain the

You can't.  Which is exactly what I was alluding to.  Or else the prior arguement of electoral ballots reflecting mainstream viewpoints is completely irrelevant. 

Once again... insert "abortion" for "gay marriage" and it's still the same.

[Dos Equis]

You can't.  Which is exactly what I was alluding to.  Or else the prior arguement of electoral ballots reflecting mainstream viewpoints is completely irrelevant. 

Once again... insert "abortion" for "gay marriage" and it's still the same.

No it isn't.  There have been numerous pro-life measures passed over the years.  Contrast that to homosexual marriage, which has lost every single time it has been put to a vote, by liberals, moderates, and conservatives.  No comparison.

[gordiano]

HAHAHAA I am not counting on anything.  Two gay men exchanging vows for marriage neither offends or interests me at all.  Unlike some, if gay marriage becomes legal, I am not worried that I might find myself in one.

LOL....well said.

[BayGBM]

HAHAHAA I am not counting on anything.  Two gay men exchanging vows for marriage neither offends or interests me at all.  Unlike some, if gay marriage becomes legal, I am not worried that I might find myself in one.

ha ha ha