Marriage, what’s all the fuss about?

I performed an experiment today with Google. I typed marriage into my search bar to see what I could find. Surprisingly, the first thing to pop up was the definition of marriage and it was from Merriam-Webster. It goes like this:

“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>”

At first, I didn’t think that just by “googling” marriage that I would get upset. Oh how I was wrong. The definition of marriage according to our lovely “most popular” dictionary is the uniting of the opposite sex. The implications of this are far and wide. We are telling every gay and lesbian person that if they want to get “married” it can’t be the dictionary definition. The dictionary automatically tells you that same-sex marriage is different than that of opposite-sex marriage. If this doesn’t upset you, you aren’t paying attention.

The idea of marriage and the definition of marriage to me is when two people love each and want to share that unity with friends and family members. It is saying to your community that you are in a loving companionship with someone that you are proud to be with and want everyone to share in your joy.

The definition should go like this:

“The state of being united to a person as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.”

The fact that there is a second addition to this definition within the dictionary also frustrates me. It is explicitly telling me that my “same-sex” marriage is not the equivalent of my straight counterpart. It is by default telling me that I am not the same kind of citizen of the United States as a heterosexual couple. This definition is teaching our children and yougn adults about marriage. They are at an immediate disadvantage of what marriage actually is.

You have politicians talking about the “sanctity” of marriage and so on. These are the same politicians and public figures later caught in scandals. They say that marriage is from the dawn of time. I don’t believe that Adam and Eve were ever married by a priest, were they? Did they go before their entire congregation and confess their love for each other? Did anyone have the chance to say, “I object! She gave him that apple, she can’t be trusted!” Where was Adam’s “bro-buddy?”

They also say that marriage is something that has been a relished act forever. I recently was listening to a great Podcast by @BlackSheepGVB and one of the hosts brought up a great point that I’m going to state as well! In the days of yore, marriage was a business contract. The nobility of England was dependent on marriage ad a family’s wealth was dependent on the marriage of their children. The only sanctity that there was was that a marriage was inevitable. I’m sure affairs were had multiple times in many marriages but old Newt wants you to believe “that affairs happen and I’m a straight guy, so an affair every once in a while is okay.” (not really his quote, just his actions)

We need to stand-up and change the definition of marriage. I don’t want to have a marriage that is an underscore to “traditional marriage.” I want a marriage that is the unity of me with the person I love. I want to be given away, by my mother of course. I don’t want to be “same-sex married” and I don’t want a partner. I want a husband who loves me and one that I love back. I don’t need a business partner, I want a lover in the most basic sense. I want a boyfriend, then hopefully fiance, then husband. I want to be married by the very definition of it. So let’s change that dictionary definition to what it should be.

“The state of being united to a person as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.”