Law in Popular Culture
Webster Makes It Official: Definition of Marriage Has Changed
Posted Mar 23, 2009 8:35 PM CST
By Martha Neil
Marriage is no longer limited to opposite-sex unions, a persuasive authority has ruled.
According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, it is also defined as "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage," reports the Adjunct Law Prof Blog in a post today. (Others had also noted the change earlier, as a trail of hat-tips makes clear.)
The secondary definition dates back to 2003, but it has recently gotten a lot of attention, the Associated Press writes.
In a press release earlier this month, the Springfield, Mass.-based company said it was surprised by the fuss, since its definition of marriage "is neither news nor unusual"—and it is, after all, the dictionary's job to define words according to their common meaning, according to the news agency.
"We were one of the last ones among the major dictionary publishers to do this," says spokesman Arthur Bicknell.
Apparently, however, it wasn't the final holdout. The Oxford English Dictionary, regarded by some as the Bible of English word definition, this month added a secondary definition of marriage in a draft version.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
mohammed
Mar 24, 2009 7:08 AM CST
Consenting adults deserve the right to marry more than one wife.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Mar 24, 2009 8:25 AM CST
Webster is saying it’s “like that of a traditional marriage.”
So that means it’s not traditional marriage?
Is there an entry under “Traditional Marriage” in the T section?
Flag this comment
Finally
Mar 24, 2009 9:33 AM CST
A wise decision by Webster.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Mar 24, 2009 11:53 AM CST
I understand Noah Webster’s own married life was not a peaceful one. I have heard that even into the wee hours, the neighbors could hear Mrs. Webster shouting, “Just what do you mean by that!!?”
Flag this comment
Debra Veoli
Mar 27, 2009 5:54 AM CST
Comment removed by moderator.
Flag this comment
P. Bryson
Mar 27, 2009 6:37 AM CST
The “like that of traditional marriage” wording looks like it is supposed to track with the first definition, which focuses on opposite sex unions recognized by law. It seems like bad drafting to me, but I think someone at Webster’s was trying to create a definition that allowed for the common use of the word “marriage” to describe same-sex unions that are not legally marriage.
Flag this comment
Albert Schvazar
Mar 27, 2009 7:08 AM CST
I think we are getting ridicolus. What about the woman who was mauled by her ape in Connecticut? She was in “the state of being united to an ape of the opposite sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage,” Does that qualify as marriage too?
Flag this comment
JP Gal
Mar 27, 2009 7:23 AM CST
Comment #7 by Albert Schvazar demonstrates why rational discussion of equal marriage is so difficult. In answer to your question, Albert, of course not. And you know it.
I live in Massachusetts, where equal marriage has been the law of the land for over five years., just like in Canada. Our state has one of the lowest divorce rates and one of the highest rates of two-parent households in the country. Our kids score in the top brackets on all of the educational tests and we have one of the best-educated work forces. Allowing committed same-sex couples to marry here, just like in Canada and Connecticut and soon in Vermont and New Hampshire, has been a very good thing. Come visit and actually meet some of the people whose relationships you are comparing to the vicious and tragic attack by a wild animal that occured in Connecticut. And by the way, the woman who was almost killed was NOT the chimp’s owner.
Flag this comment
Dan
Mar 27, 2009 7:30 AM CST
I think the ready willingness of people like Albert to leap to absurdities such as human-animal “marriages” is that they don’t seriously believe that women have the capacity to consent, and instead marriages are business arrangements between a father and husband exchanging chattel. This would completely explain the cries of “if we allow same sex marriage, then we must allow a man to marry his dog, or a child!”
Frankly, I find it helpful, because it serves as an easy indicator that the speaker doesn’t believe that half of the population are really people.
Flag this comment
RKG
Mar 27, 2009 7:35 AM CST
So, Webster has “ruled” that the “common meaning” of marriage now includes same-sex unions. Webster undermines its own credibility by disregarding at least the majority, if not the vast majority, of people who do not consider a same-sex union to be marriage. It would appear that Webster has bought into the myth that acceptance of same-sex “marriage” is inevitable. But why? Would their dictionary sales be different one way or the other?
Flag this comment
t
Mar 27, 2009 7:42 AM CST
To #1: consenting adults then deserve the right to marry more than one husband . . .
Flag this comment
Peter
Mar 27, 2009 7:43 AM CST
I have a twenty-year old desk dictionary. The “a” definition of “marriage” is “the state of being married”. The “a” definition of “married” is “having a spouse”. The “a” definition of “spouse” is “a marriage partner: husband or wife”. There’s nothing in those definitions requiring people married to each other to be of different sexes.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Mar 27, 2009 7:47 AM CST
Dan, I do not think all these folks view women as chattels. I think the point they are trying to make is that traditional moral underpinnings of our society have been the basis for nearly all our laws. Once you say that these mere moral prejudices cannot be a valid basis for laws, what law then, would be valid? Without resort to any moral code, how can one say that pedophilia, necrophillia, rape or murder are “wrong”? If you want to confine the argument to one that morals simply cannot be a basis to prohibit “consensual” conduct by adults, that would still require the conclusion that drug and prostitution offenses could not have a valid basis. The larger question here would be, if morals cannot be the basis for laws, how can we (and why would we) have any laws concerning marriage?
Flag this comment
RML
Mar 27, 2009 7:59 AM CST
to #12: The original 1828 Webster’s dictionary defines marriage as “The act of uniting a man and woman for life;” “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.”
Flag this comment
Dan
Mar 27, 2009 8:00 AM CST
“I think the point they are trying to make is that traditional moral underpinnings of our society have been the basis for nearly all our laws.”
Such as antimiscegenation statutes, slavery, inability of women to own property or vote, racial segregation? Perhaps “traditional moral underpinnings” are readily changed by a changing society.
I’m not sure why you go off on the tangent of “if we allow an egalitarian definition of marriage, we must abandon our entire moral code and allow necrophilia and murder.” Well, actually, I am sure - it’s a false dichotomy that you’re hoping I would overlook. There exists a wide range of possibilities between “abandon all laws” and “remove discrimination from marriage statutes”.
As for your “larger question” and ignoring where you beg the question, why would we have any laws concerning marriage? Marriage is a secular contract between two consenting adults and the state, conferring hundreds of substantive legal rights, including intestate succession, automatic legal and medical proxy, etc. We have laws concerning marriage because they codify these granted rights. I’m surprised this is confusing to you.
Flag this comment
The Commentator
Mar 27, 2009 8:01 AM CST
First, I am surprised that someone else beat B.Mcleod to be the first to comment on this article.
Second, I totally agree with Mr. McLeod—basically, most, if not all laws are based on moral principles. Else, why is polygamy, bigamy, necrophilia etc outlawed?
Flag this comment
Dan
Mar 27, 2009 8:03 AM CST
RKG said: “Webster undermines its own credibility by disregarding at least the majority, if not the vast majority, of people who do not consider a same-sex union to be marriage.”
I realize it’s difficult to click on the link and read the article, but in the future, please do, as it will save us from having to deal with idiotic arguments like this.
Allow me to help, though:
Marriage:
(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.
See that (1) there, RKG? That represents the primary definition, held by “at least the majority, if not the vast majority”.
If you need further help on understanding dictionary entries, please feel free to ask.
Flag this comment
Michael Fielding
Mar 27, 2009 8:16 AM CST
In my opinion, this article a sad commentary on the state of our society. Changing the definition of marriage to include unions between same sex couples is simply a means of trying to justify a practice which fundamentally weakens our nation.
The family is the fundamental unit of society. Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of a strong family. Children thrive in an environment where their mother and father work together to love and support them. Tremendous joy and happiness comes to a husband and wife as they diligently work together in raising their family. It may seem like a daunting task to raise children in these times, but it is well worth the effort.
Flag this comment
ABC
Mar 27, 2009 8:16 AM CST
Primarily in response to #10:
The true role of a dictionary is simply to observe the use of words and, when a critical mass is reached regarding a new or changed usage, to report it. This frequently upsets people, whether “language purists” who decried the use of such terms as “hopefully” when I was younger, or people like those who now resent the researchers’ conclusion that the use of the term “marriage” has expanded.
While I believe that the use of language strongly affects both how and what people think, I also believe that quality dictionaries try to scrupulously adhere to their role as reporters.
Having dealt with aspersions cast uponthe dictionary’s editors and their motives, we can now resume the discussion of policy.
Flag this comment
Dan
Mar 27, 2009 8:29 AM CST
“The family is the fundamental unit of society. Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of a strong family. Children thrive in an environment where their mother and father work together to love and support them.”
And all current research shows that children thrive equally well in any environment with two stable parents of any gender. If marriage were solely about raising children, then there would be a greater push _for_ allowing gay marriage, as it would increase the number of stable two-parent households.
However, marriage is not solely about children. Children have never been a requirement of marriage - witness infertile couples, couples post-menopause, etc. - and marriage has never been a requirement of having children - witness Bristol Palin and Britney Spears.
Marriage, as noted above, is merely a secular contract between two adults and the state, conferring hundreds of substantive rights. Many of those rights aid in raising children, but just as many aid in ways that benefit childless couples.
Flag this comment
Gloria Park
Mar 27, 2009 8:41 AM CST
In response to #18 and similar. Love and care are the fundamental forces of society, I’d say, more than “family” which concept is a historically changing one—as with all others, including marriage, which stemmed more from economic necessity and male-oriented property rights than love or nature. Tremendous joy and happiness comes to all those who love and who strive to love. Any lover knows that. Children also know when they are loved and thrive when loved, whether by their parents or others. I think it is a wonderful commentary on our society that so many can pursue their happiness and love who they want. Meaning of life does differ and as much as I adore being a mother, children is not the only purpose of lmarriage. I personally think that the legal support for marriage should end over all—so that people may marry (i.e. pledge to be united for life and to support and honor and love one another) one or more of opposite sex or otherwise or not at all for reasons other than legal rights. BTW, I am a lawyer and a singe mother of a thriving child whose father I left because I determined that he was incapable of making a strong family, which though would’ve been very nice, was not the reality. Ideas of ideals of human community (family, love, etc) are inspiring and important, and up there on my list is the furtherance of a tolerant and embracing society that allows each individual to craft his or own life and meaning. That is why for example, I am pro-life personally but strongly pro-choice for society. In general I would appreciate people distinguishing personal conduct and values from social ones.
Flag this comment
RKG
Mar 27, 2009 8:44 AM CST
Gee, Dan, I suppose you think all that sarcasm is necessary to make your point. It’s too bad, because you could have easily made good points without it.
If the primary and secondary definitions are intended to convey exclusive definitions ranked by the number of people who have adopted them, sort of like polling data, then I suppose you’re right; the primary and secondary positions of Webster’s marriage definitions might accurately reflect the relative number of people who have adopted the respective definitions. But, if a secondary definition is intended to convey an equally acceptable, but less often used defintion, which I think is more likely, then I stand by my (idiotic) argument.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Mar 27, 2009 8:47 AM CST
Yes, Dan, societal morals (and laws) do change over time. I read your post as essentially conceding that morals can be a valid basis for laws. In any event, I could care less how many men you marry. On the argument over what the definition should be, I have no position. The main point I wanted to make is that you are completely wrong to accuse all the people who disagree with you (of which, I suspect, ther are many) of basing their position on a conecpt of women as chattels. That is just an idiotic assertion.
Flag this comment
Dan
Mar 27, 2009 8:58 AM CST
Yes, RKG, that’s how dictionaries work. They’re not moral judges, deciding which definitions are “good” and which are “bad”. They simply report all, ranked in order of usage.
—
McLeod, I think you’re reading too much into my statement when you say “you are completely wrong to accuse *all* the people who disagree with you.”
I am merely accusing a subset: those who consider consent to not be required of both parties for marriage, such as Albert and his statement of ape/human “marriage”. If he completely disregards one party’s inability to consent, then it is logical to extend that to his views on marriage, where *traditionally*, women were not required to consent, as they were mere chattel.
Flag this comment
Amber
Mar 27, 2009 9:03 AM CST
Well said #21
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Mar 27, 2009 9:05 AM CST
I am pretty sure Albert was actually making a humorous comparison between a chimp attack and some marriages he has seen. Maybe you could find a quarter somewhere and buy yourself a sense of humor.
Flag this comment
Kalifornia Arnold
Mar 27, 2009 9:12 AM CST
What is the penalty for Bigamy? Two mothers-in-law—Did Webster once define Bigamy as :“a fog over Italy?”—-Why do you think marriage has been called “an institution?”
Flag this comment
Kalifornia Arnold
Mar 27, 2009 9:14 AM CST
Sorry—A Bigamist is a fog over Italy—excuse the typo in #27
Flag this comment
Dan
Mar 27, 2009 9:17 AM CST
Was former Governor and failed Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee making a humorous comparison when he said: “I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal”?
How about former Senator, failed Presidential candidate, and Internet meme Rick Santorum, when he said: “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be”?
Similar examples exist, from Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Justice Scalia, and several other Republican Senators. Is it more likely that every single one of these people was telling an identical joke, or that they are instead hewing to the original, traditional definition of marriage - a man purchasing chattel from a father, with consent of the chattel irrelevant?
Flag this comment
JP Gal
Mar 27, 2009 9:19 AM CST
B. McLeod (#21): Sorry, but there was nothing funny about the violent chimp attack that almost killed and permanently disfigured an innocent bystander. If the comment was meant to be some sort of joke about marriage, I’ve represented real victims of domestic violence and don’t find it a laughing matter. And you have to know that in every debate about equal marriage, someone inevitably compares homosexuality to bestiality or says “and I want to marry my dog!” As a law-abiding, tax-paying, moral person who has worked to help others my entire life, married to a gifted oncology nurse who devotes her life to easing human suffering and caring for others at the end of their lives, we’re frankly don’t see the humor and we’re pretty tired of being called names.
Flag this comment
Carol
Mar 27, 2009 9:20 AM CST
No comment really, just letting Dan know that he’s got a cheering section out here.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Mar 27, 2009 9:22 AM CST
I suppose you could ask them. But I did not see where Albert referred to or incorporated their remarks or intentions. No, I think Albert was joking. Personally, I found it hilarious.
Flag this comment
Dan
Mar 27, 2009 9:26 AM CST
I likewise find jokes mocking a minority group’s attempts to achieve equal rights hilarious. Come, let us laugh about ending the sufferage of women. Ha ha.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Mar 27, 2009 9:37 AM CST
I read Albert’s post as a joke about marriage in general, but if others (e.g. Dan) understand it as some kind of “women’s sufferage” issue, well, to each his own.
Flag this comment
JP Gal
Mar 27, 2009 9:40 AM CST
It’s easy to joke about marriage when no one’s taking away your right to marry or saying that you don’t deserve the right to marry.
Flag this comment
mohammed
Mar 27, 2009 9:42 AM CST
a man cannot marry 3 conseting wives. this is discrimination and a violation of sharia law.
equal protection of the law means that each consenting adult can marry as many partners as they want.
Flag this comment
Dan
Mar 27, 2009 9:51 AM CST
“equal protection of the law means that each consenting adult can marry as many partners as they want.”
Uh, no, it doesn’t.
And you’d have a better argument for polygamy under due process than equal protection - there is a significant and obvious difference between a group of people and an individual.
Flag this comment
James Pollock
Mar 27, 2009 10:16 AM CST
I think a lot of the argument over “gay marriage” comes about because the different sides have never agreed on just what “marriage” is. There’s the religious type of marriage, recognized within a church, and there’s the civil type, recognized by the government, but the two don’t always overlap 100%. Applying legal principles to religion or religious principles to law then causes friction. The religious are afraid that civil law will be applied to their church, while the other side fears that religion will be imposed on them through the civil law. The difference is that I can ignore someone else’s church doctrine (perhaps at the risk of my everlasting soul if their theology is more accurate than mine) but it’s harder to ignore the civil law. If we can start by deciding what we’re actually arguing about, perhaps a solution is on the horizon.
Flag this comment
James Pollock
Mar 27, 2009 10:19 AM CST
One other thing: For fans of “traditional” marriage, men, please remember that if something should happen to your brother, it is your duty to marry his wife and adopt his children, even if you already have a wife and children of your own. Because that’s how the Israelites did things in Biblical times.
Flag this comment
bweig
Mar 27, 2009 10:34 AM CST
Marriage is not a right. Everyone seems to be overlooking this. It has always been proscribed in terms of what social mores are. For example, there are age restrictions, familial restrictions (you can’t marry your sister/brother, etc) and restrictions upon the number of marriage partners one may have. There is no “right” to marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, so it is disengenuous at best for anyone to argue that they are being denied their rights. It is the homosexual agenda to change the social mores of this country to be “accepting” of their lifestyle so that they can convince people that they are being denied something based solely upon their status. I, for one, don’t and never will buy into that dogma.
Flag this comment
Larry
Mar 27, 2009 10:37 AM CST
Bravo #11 on your prescient comment to #1. I’m wondering whether or not he would graciously consent and/or approve of his wife visiting her other husbands. #1 thanks for your post; it’s stupendous in its simplicity.
Flag this comment
JP Gal
Mar 27, 2009 10:50 AM CST
#40: The U.S. Supreme Court has said that “marriage is a right of fundamental importance.” The Court has also said that the state cannot treat a group of people differently simply because of animus against that group. Even if marriage is not a “right,” the state has to have some rational basis for treating otherwise qualified same sex couples and opposite sex couples differently. Not liking “homosexuals” and their “agenda” doesn’t pass the test. Read the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Goodridge.
Flag this comment
Dan
Mar 27, 2009 10:52 AM CST
“Marriage is not a right.”
It is according to the Supreme Court - see Loving v. Virginia.
“For example, there are age restrictions, familial restrictions (you can’t marry your sister/brother, etc) and restrictions upon the number of marriage partners one may have.”
Simply because there are restrictions doesn’t mean that it’s not a right. For example, you have the right to free speech - yet time, place, and manner restrictions most certainly exist and are constitutional. Would you claim that we therefore do *not* have a right to free speech? I think not.
Flag this comment
JP Gal
Mar 27, 2009 11:07 AM CST
#38: You’re right, Ken. Having lived through the wars in Massachusetts five years ago, however, I can tell you that no matter how often and how clearly the civil rights community described our effort as one of securing the right of CIVIL marriage for same sex couples, our opponents claimed that we were attacking their faith and that churches would be forced to perform marriage ceremonies if same sex marriage were legal.
Well, same sex marriage has been legal here for five years, thousands of couples have married, and not a single church that opposes equal marriage has been forced to recognize one. However, all of those faiths and churches that support equal marriage have been permitted to freely exercise their religious beliefs and perform the ceremonies prevously prohibited by the state.
The civil marriage laws have long permitted remarriage following divorce and no Catholic church has ever been forced to recognize or perform such marriages. As long as the state permits any two otherwise qualified adults of the opposite sex to marry, for no reason or any reason at all (and that’s the current state of the law, because no one asks you why you are marrying and there are no conditions on the license and it isn’t revoked if you fail to have children), then it cannot deny civil marriage rights to otherwise qualified adults of the same sex. If your faith opposes equal marriage, your path is clear: don’t have one.
Flag this comment
Avon
Mar 27, 2009 11:08 AM CST
I’m sympathetic with Michael Fielding #18.
But my marriage is not one bit weaker due to the fact that gays marry in Canada, or in Massachusetts - and it would not be one bit weaker if they married in my state. It is not a bit weaker if they call their relationship a union, nor if they call it a marriage, nor whatever.
We can have all that Michael Fielding values, plus we can have stable monogamous households for those who do not participate in what he values. Gay people are rarely going to end up in successful male-female marriages, so they might as well add the best they can achieve for society to whatever straight people contribute. I’m 55, so the gay couples I know are mostly as long-term as my own marriage and the majority are raising children - and doing it very well, I might add, with commendable results.
Flag this comment
G Koenig
Mar 27, 2009 11:14 AM CST
I think this is really unfair. Marrage should be governed by where you live. Some guy said you can’t have 2 husbands in Islam, and maybe he is right. That’s good over there in Islamland, but here, you should be able to do what you want as long as it is legal. If we can have people with same sex, fine, if not, fine, and if 2 husbands or 2 wives, fine or not fine. You just have to follow the law. End of story.
Flag this comment
Mikey
Mar 27, 2009 11:41 AM CST
JP Gal, #30, reminds me of the old joke: Q: “How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?” A: “THAT’S NOT FUNNY!!” Not that I particularly care to help you convince anyone of your viewpoint, JP Gal, but you might be surprised at how much better you’d come across if you developed a sense of humor. Just sayin’.
Dan - are you Dan Savage, “Savage Love” columnist, by chance? Love your column!
Personally I think #38 makes a good point. I really don’t care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, or how they structure their relationship - live & let live and all that good stuff. “Civil unions” that grant two people certain property rights, health care rights, etc., yeah, okay, that’s pretty reasonable too. But the problem for many people (who don’t, um, view women as chattel) with the gay rights movement’s desire that their relationships be labeled “marriage” is that it seems to go well beyond seeking basic legal rights and demands a societal or governmental “stamp of approval” on what many many people view, rightly or wrongly, as an immoral lifestyle choice. I think it is this overreaching, much like JP Gal’s appparent lack of good humor, that instinctively causes many people to reject what could more reasonably be conveyed in terms of basic legal rights without being labeled “marriage.”
Flag this comment
James Pollock
Mar 27, 2009 11:59 AM CST
I think the only solution is to get the state out of the “marriage” business. Go through the statutes, and replace instances of “marriage” with say, “committed union”. Then it is clear that you go to church, and only to church, to receive the sacrament of marriage, and you go to a government office to receive the legal benefits of a committed union (where marriage is one, but not the only, recognized type). The two problems here are 1) the amount of work necessary to disentangle marriage from the statutes, and 2) the lack of will to actually do it.
In the meantime, there is probably good, paying work for us to draft “commitment contracts” conferring the default legal benefits of marriage upon people unable to obtain them the “traditional” way…
Flag this comment
JP Gal
Mar 27, 2009 12:03 PM CST
Mikey (#47): Are you saying that the gay & lesbian community would have our full civil rights if we were just funnier? Gosh, I didn’t know it was so easy! I’m emailing Ellen right now!
Flag this comment
Dan
Mar 27, 2009 12:21 PM CST
“I think the only solution is to get the state out of the “marriage” business. Go through the statutes, and replace instances of “marriage” with say, “committed union”.”
I would disagree. Consider, the majority of Americans are opposed to allowing gays to get married, while at the same time, the majority of Americans have no problem with civil unions. Consequently, there is a real and distinct difference between “marriage” and “civil unions”. The former has a long history, wrought with tradition and a sanctified place and respect within the consciousness of the community. If it didn’t, there would be no argument over gay marriage in the first place. Whether intangibles like respect and tradition accorded to an institution matter has been affirmed by the Supreme Court - see Sweatt v. Painter.
So, what does it do to people like us with existing heterosexual marriages if they are suddenly reclassified as civil unions? We lose the tradition and respect accorded to the institution, without due process. This would be a violation of the 5th amendment rights of existing married couples.
No, the answer is that you can’t get rid of marriage, and you can’t restrict it to just heterosexuals.
/and no, I’m not Dan Savage
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.