Comments on: Marriage: Redefined

By: Jaroslaw

Jaroslaw — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:30:31 +0000

Jason – what is your definition of “traditional?” Even if you limit it only to the U.S., people very often didn’t get married in Church in this country. People who lived together and presented themselves as married were after a time, according to “common law” hence the term common law wife/husband. No legal papers signed etc.

As to “tradition” in the rest of the world over the centuries – well, consult any history book. There are as many variations and customs as there are people.

By: jason

jason — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:41:50 +0000

I have no problem with traditional marriage being defined as what it has always been – the union of a man and woman in church. But when it comes to civil marriages, it is only fair to include same-sex combinations in the definition.

By: Jaroslaw

Jaroslaw — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:40:22 +0000

Oh, and HURRAY for Merriam-Webster redefining the word in their dictionary.

By: Jaroslaw

Jaroslaw — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:39:08 +0000

I know this has been said many times, but it needs to be repeated. The right wing religious nuts need to be reminded that freedom belongs to everyone which is why they are allowed to practice their lunatic religions. Nothing like what they believe even remotely existed at the time our Constitution was written. The Founding Fathers would have been appalled at what they believe.

So they are free to believe as they like but the government is supposed to be neutral about religion which is why religion can never be used as a reason to ban same sex marriage.

By: ilsita

ilsita — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:36:09 +0000

(I mean, this is a very, very good thing.)

By: ilsita

ilsita — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:31:43 +0000

Well, I just thank GOD that we don’t have to bother with the whole governmentwhatever voting thing anymore. All we need is a mole at Webster’s and we can bring on the apocalypse!

By: getreal

getreal — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:07:39 +0000

This whole argument that homophobes use about not wanting to redefined marriage is bullsh*t it has been redefined many times through history and continues to. Ironically marriage started out (and is still in many parts of the world) as a contract between two men a father and a potential son in law exchanging assets and chattel( a woman). So the first marriages were between a man and a man not between a man and a woman.

By: Landon Bryce

Landon Bryce — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:00:38 +0000

This is huge, actually. There are many people who are not religious and who do accept “the dictionary” as the ultimate authority on what words mean. Kids now have an authority to refer to if a homophobic English teacher grades them down for not putting quotation marks around the word that defines their parents’ relationships. That’s nice. I can now have an authoritative source to write in with when I complain to news organizations that their use of “marriage” to refer to gay relationships is not only bigoted, but bad style. Please, everyone, dash off an email referring to this every time you see “gay ‘marriage’” in print. It’s dying now and we can use this to kill it off if we want to.

Others are right to observe that the news here is not really that Merriam-Webster did this (although it is totally awesome that it did) but that the actual usage of the word has changed. We’re winning.

Ha ha ha, fuckers.

By: petted

petted — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:03:42 +0000

the thing is will this actually effect the number of dictionaries they sell? Its not as though an AFA boycott will accomplish much I mean seriously who buys a dictionary on a regular basis? Schools periodically will replace their dictionaries but given the state of the economy I think they’ll be focusing on getting new textbooks and finishing up any building repairs/extensions.

All that aside though this is rather awesome though we’ll know we’ve truly arrived when 1a and 1b are replaced with: 1 . Two persons in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

Anyone else think of the marriage ceremony from the Princes Bride?

By: Charles J. Mueller

Charles J. Mueller — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:00:44 +0000

@EdWoody:

Another surf-by shooting?

Your’re absolutely right. By your own admission, it is a cheap shot.

What does your comment have to do with the topic?

By: BillyBob Thornton

BillyBob Thornton — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:21:39 +0000

I don’t know why I don’t see alot about the main reason for people who oppose gay marriage discussed. We all know the vast majority of people who oppose it, do it based upon their religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. This should be repeatedly used in the arguments for gay marriage. We all know it’s true, why is it not written about on blogs, news articles, statements from the various groups in support of gay marriage. Who are they afraid they are going to alienate? They already oppose us. Pointing out the real reason why is completely justified and should not be kept in the closet.

By: EdWoody

EdWoody — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:14:28 +0000

I know it’s a cheap shot, but when writing an article about dictionaries, one should take care to use correct spelling, grammar and punctuation.

By: Flex

Flex — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:00:16 +0000

It’s about time that the dictionary has updated it’s definition of the word marriage. I’ve been saying it for years, the definition of marriage has already changed, and the christianist corporation employees are in absolute denial of this reality. It is a direct reflection of their failure!