Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary defined marriage as:
The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Merriam-Webster Online now says marriage is:
1 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.
I am thinking a lot about the meaning of marriage these days. I find it disingenuous, at the very least, for gay activists to say that they are not, by their lobbying and legislative and judicial actions, trying to redefine marriage.
However, as the definition of marriage has changed in the last two hundred years, it has not been completely as a result of recent homosexual activism and propaganda. WIth no credentials as a sociologist or a historian, I give my humble opinion that the definition of marriage began to change as more and more people in Western society lost faith in the Bible and the God of the BIble, and that it continued to lose meaning as promiscuity and fornication became, not only common, but also acceptable as a lifestyle.
If marriage is not a contract “both civil and religious”, then what is its basis? If God and Adam did not agree on the definition of marriage in Genesis 2:24 (Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.), then why can’t we as a society, by majority vote or evolving social mores, define marriage any way we see fit? Serial marriage in which the partners know that that the marriage contract is impermanent or polygamy in which either partner can have have more than one lifetime mate or homosexual marriage in which both partners are of the same sex or open marriage/non-marriage in which the couple lives together but there’s no legal commitment . . . . the options are endless.
In this kind of society, with undefined marriage that’s simply “a state of being united to a person”, marriage loses all meaning. I can be united to Engineer Husband today and to Tom, Dick or Mary tomorrow. I can move in with Joe and decide that I want us to stay “married” for the rest of our lives, but he can leave me whenever the first gray hair appears.
We’re entering Wonderland, and it looks as if the state is to be master. Our democratically elected government will decide the meaning of the word marriage and in the process will drain the word, and the institution, of all meaning.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is, ” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty. “which is to be master—that’s all.”
I find this to be a sad state of affairs, and I challenge anyone who advocates for such meaningless marriage to tell me how it can be good for children or for a civil society, much less how it can be right before a holy God who created us to cleave to a mate of the opposite sex and become one flesh. Of course, if marriage means “whatever I choose it to mean, neither more nor less,” I am free to have my partner(s) in marriage choose a different meaning from mine. And that’s not freedom at all; it’s chaos.
Here,here, Sherry! You are so eloquent when you write on these ‘controversial’ topics. Very well said!
My definition of marriage? A bond of love which two people wish to express by committing to spend their entire lives together. Same sex marriage would not denigrate that bond any more than it already has degraded. Why deny such a statement of love to people who are arguing for commitment? We have enough people in this world who avoid commitment at all costs and they are those heterosexual couples. I think a “sad state of affairs” is when two people love each other more than anything, want to marry, but are prevented from being together by the force of government. I’m so grateful that the British person I fell in love with was a man and that I am a woman because otherwise there would be no hope for us since we were unlucky enough to be born in two different countries. I feel far more for those same-sex couples who are not as lucky as we are than for the illusory people who would somehow be harmed by gay marriage.
Moreover, divorce and discord inside a marriage is far more harmful to children than gay marriage ever could be. That point always falls flat with me. How could gay marriage be worse than divorce? I know so many children who are products of broken marriages and they all have scars. Further, isn’t it more harmful for a child to conceal his/her true sexuality and hide in a straight and unhappy marriage for years until devastating the lives of his/her children and spouse when he/she can no longer deny the truth? Yes, because this happened to my best friend’s father, and if anyone thinks that sort of damage to his children is “better” than allowing people to accept their identities openly before bringing innocent children into the world, I would be baffled by their insensitivity. Also, further arguing for children here, there are thousands if not millions of orphans and abandoned children out there. Permitting gay marriage would give these couples an ability to adopt and love children who would otherwise grow up on the fringes of society feeling unwanted and without any sort of stability in their lives. Having two mommies or two daddies is vastly better than having no mommies and no daddies.
I no longer believe in God. But I was raised Catholic and I firmly believe that if He was out there, He would be far more pleased for His people to love one another and be allowed to express that love and take care of His children than argue purposelessly about a sacrament. Times change and I’m sure God changes with them.
“Times change and I’m sure God changes with them.”…there is something very disturbing about this sentence. I guess it is the implication that God should follow humans instead of the other way around. I suppose if everyone became an atheist, God would have to commit suicide. He would merely be changing with the times.
Semicolon – You make a comparison to Alice in Wonderland and it is one I have never thought of before. I have had the feeling I am in Bizarro world myself. I live in a state that has voted twice to keep the definition of marriage heterosexual and twice we have faced the bullying of the courts and the activists to overturn that majority vote. The latest big news is the personal attacks against Miss California who dared to express the same views Barack Obama holds regarding same-sex marriage. She is being ripped to shreds for her beliefs and Obama comes out unscathed. That is Bizarro world.
Pingback: Pseudogamy at Semicolon