Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyMarch 18th, 2009
You’ve heard that old canard. “The dictionary defines marriage as…” Well guess what? What’s good for the goose is now good for the gays. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines marriage this way:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century1 a (1) : 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 (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons: wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
Make a note of it for future reference.
[Hat tip: Joe.My.God]
Update: Rex Wockner sent this in an email: In journalism school, I learned two definitions of “news”: 1) Something that just happened, 2) Something that people don’t know about yet. Today’s “definition of marriage” item falls into the second category. Merriam-Webster changed the definition in 2003, reports their PR guy, Arthur Bicknell. Thanks to my bud Corky at the Daily News for tracking that down. See attached Word document from Arthur. By the end of 2003, if memory serves, same-sex marriage was legal in only three places: the Netherlands, Belgium and the province of Ontario.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Craig L. Adams
March 18th, 2009
But, it’s still a secondary meaning. Does that bother you? Or not?
Jason D
March 18th, 2009
I wrote a blog about this last year. From a little googling I found the freepers getting in a tizzy about it in 2004. So it’s been like that since at least then.
Timothy Kincaid
March 18th, 2009
No Craig, it’s not “secondary”. It is one of the two definitions under 1.(a).
Funny you should think that
gar
March 18th, 2009
Merriam-Webster is headquartered in Springfield, Massachusetts, so I would hope that their definition of marriage reflected the practices of their home state. Just the same, it’s nice to see when folks do the right thing.
Stefano A
March 18th, 2009
Timothy, I think I understand what Craig meant, in that my reaction was similar in that the secondary definition is not just “another” definition. It is subjigated by being described as “like traditional marriage” rather than same as and with no mention of it being a “contractual relationship recognized by law” (which it is in some states and some countries). In other words, a secondary definition would be redundant if the definition for #1 simply read: the state of being united to a person of the opposite or same sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
Stefano A
March 18th, 2009
So I don’t think it’s “funny” that Craig should “think like that” at all. What I find odd is that you would find no fault with same-sex marital relationships being still set aside as a “secondary” definition, which implies that a same-sex marriage remains something different than an opposite sex marriage which requires its own “definition”.
Stefano A
March 18th, 2009
PS
The above having been said, it is worth noting the “improvement” that at least same-sex marriages are being included in some way in the definition of marriage.
Kith
March 18th, 2009
I think definition 3 is far more important to this argument then 1, since it is the unadulterated definition of marriage.
3. an intimate or close union
No one can say it was changed to be PC. This was the very first definition that was attached to the word marriage, this was the definition I saw in a 1950s copy of Oxford English Unabridged.
No god, no law, no sex, no gender, no ceremony, just “an intimate or close union”. I have used that definition far more often then any “new and improved” definition. As the first push for anti-gay laws, int he 70s, started many dictionaries ran out to put the more “PC” “union between a man and a woman” definition, which so many “right thinking” people used to bludgeon the world with. When in fact definition 3 was always sitting there polity deifying their stance.
Stefano A
March 18th, 2009
Also, as an aside and something that effects both same and opposite sex married couples is this definition seems to conflate the two types of contractual marriages; i.e., the religiously “defined” contractual arrangement known as a “holy sacrament” and the civil recognition by law. The way the definition 1 reads, is that it is only a marriage if it’s “recognized by law”, which is what makes two separate definitions for same and opposite sex couples superfluous. A marriage is a marriage regardless of the sex or gender when it’s recognized by law. Any other arrangement is not a marriage of type 1 or type 2 but is an entirely different relationship (civil union, domestic partnership, registered partnership or something that falls under #3 “an intimate or close union”.
Although I admit I haven’t looked for the definitions of civil unions or domestic partnerships, etc.
Stefano A
March 18th, 2009
Kith:
I hadn’t seen your post when I made my most recent post. I think I agree with you.
Timothy Kincaid
March 18th, 2009
Folks,
We may wish to recall that dictionaries do not define the meanings of words, they only reflect the meanings as understood by society. For example, one of the compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary gave the following guideline:
It is broad and common usage that qualifies inclusion, not some mandate of government.
And we should remind ourselves that dictionaries don’t try to distinguish “real meanings” from cultural use. So the blessing of inclusion in a dictionary is little more (or less) than the recognition that society is already using this word this way.
As for how to read the definition, everything that is in each of the numbered definitions is a unique meaning of the word:
1. Romantic union of people
2. Ritual
3. Non-romantic union of inanimate objects
Within these can be subsets to reflect more subtle differences:
1.a. the state of being married
1.b. the relationship within the marriage
1.c. the institution of marriage
And occasionally there can be a breakdown even further to give clarity on yet more slight distinctions:
1.a.1. the state of being married heterosexually as is recognized by law
1.a.2. the state of being married homosexually whether or not recognized by law
This distinction is interesting in that Merriam-Webster is distinguishing that cultural usage of the word for heterosexuals almost invariably means legal structure, while when refering to same-sex couples society will use the word “married” whether or not the government approves.
Those who are desperate to “protect marriage” should take note. Socially, long-term gay couples are now considered “married” in the minds of those who know them – even when the law denies them that title.
The risk is not that allowing gays to have state-sactioned marriage will harm heterosexual marriage. Rather the opposite is the threat.
If “married” ceases to require state and formal recognition for gays – as appears to be the case – it’s but a matter of time before the word “marriage” will no longer reflect a legal distinction for opposite-sex marriages as well.
If marriage protectors genuinely wish to keep legally contracted marriage as an honored relationship that is the gold standard for social structure, they should legalize same-sex marriages and insist upon them for gay couples.
Jim Burroway
March 18th, 2009
Update: Rex Wockner sent this in an email: In journalism school, I learned two definitions of “news”: 1) Something that just happened, 2) Something that people don’t know about yet. Today’s “definition of marriage” item falls into the second category. Merriam-Webster changed the definition in 2003, reports their PR guy, Arthur Bicknell. Thanks to my bud Corky at the Daily News for tracking that down. See attached Word document from Arthur. By the end of 2003, if memory serves, same-sex marriage was legal in only three places: the Netherlands, Belgium and the province of Ontario.
Jaft
March 18th, 2009
While that makes sense Tim and I now agree (I had originally the same gut reaction that Stefano and Craig had), I highly doubt that our opposition has demonstrated nearly so great an understanding of many things as to know how dictionaries are put together. If you were to pick, at random, a sexualist bigot – he might be angered that we’ve got a place with marriage in the dictionary but he won’t see it at all in the light that you’ve just explained it (nor do I have a feeling he’d be willing to be patient enough for it to be explained, either).
Craig L. Adams
March 18th, 2009
Timothy,
I asked. You answered. Thanks
Leave A Comment