Posted on 03/21/2009 9:46:59 AM PDT by slomark
States may be debating gay marriage. People may be voting on it. Tempers may be flaring on both sides of the issue. But society’s uncertainty hasn’t stopped the good liberals at Merriam Webster from defining marriage any damn way they want it defined.
The second definition of the word is now, “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”
...excerpt
(Excerpt) Read more at ihatethemedia.com ...
That’s a very conservative definition if they didn’t mention animals, trees, bugs or inert objects.
I am pretty sure another dic. did the same. So now we will change the means of words to please people.
Fine by me. The faster we get government out of marriage, the better. Would you really object to calling a couple “married”, when they were married in an underground Christian church in a country (say Saudi Arabia) where it’s illegal to practice that religion, and unsafe to tell government authorities you were married in such a setting? Would you really only consider the relationship worthy of being called “marriage” if the Saudi government agreed that’s what it was? The whole concept of government definition/recognition/licensing of marriage is antithetical to personal and religious freedom.
Not only do liberals write textbooks so they can present their own revisionist view of events but now they have transferred their radicalisnm to the dictionary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.