Hurray for the word-loving lexicographers at Merriam-Webster! Yes, it’s awesome that one of the leading English-language dictionary’s has added “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage” to its definition of marriage, but of course, all they’re doing is reflecting a contemporary usage of the word.
What’s really awesome is the way it upsets wingnut crazies on the web, despite the fact that based on comments like “God doez not luv u gehs! Git rite with Jesus!!!ONEONEONE”, we’re pretty sure they would not know a dictionary if it showed up at their doorstep and started reading them- A to Z.
The award for most unintentionally hilarious outrage to the news that “marriage” has been literally redefined comes from YouTube user Eric B., who know how to use ethereal and funereal chords to great effect:
So sad, so very sad. Anyway, as we pointed out, dictionary’s change definitions based on usage, not because their ivy-league schooled ivory towers of academic privilege. Just ask Webster’s associate editor Kory Stampe, who says of the fracas:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“We often hear from people who believe that we are promoting – or perhaps failing to promote – a particular social or political agenda when we make choices about what words to include in the dictionary and how those words should be defined. We hear such criticism from all parts of the political spectrum. We’re genuinely sorry when an entry in – or an omission from – one of our dictionaries is found to be offensive or upsetting, but we can’t allow such considerations to deflect us from our primary job as lexicographers.
In recent years, this new sense of ‘marriage’ has appeared frequently and consistently throughout a broad spectrum of carefully edited publications, and is often used in phrases such as ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘gay marriage’ by proponents and opponents alike. Its inclusion was a simple matter of providing our readers with accurate information about all of the word’s current uses.”
Which is why we all need to keep on working the word “santorum” into conversations, people.
Flex
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!
EdWoody
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.
BillyBob Thornton
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.
Charles J. Mueller
@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?
petted
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?
Landon Bryce
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.
getreal
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.
ilsita
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!
ilsita
(I mean, this is a very, very good thing.)
Jaroslaw
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.
Jaroslaw
Oh, and HURRAY for Merriam-Webster redefining the word in their dictionary.
jason
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.
Jaroslaw
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.