MARRIAGE DEFINED, NOT DEFILED

I’m weary of all the sound and fury, none of it significant, at various levels of authority, over whether to allow, prohibit, or what have you, “homosexual marriages,” meaning the “marriage” of two persons of the same sex. I use quotes only because these, or similar, terms are current in some places.

The issue is easily resolved by the English language itself, but as English-speaking Americans are generally ignorant of their own tongue, we have much ado about nothing.

According to the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, “marriage” is defined, “the condition of being a husband or wife.” “Husband” is defined, “a man joined to a woman by marriage,” whereas “wife” is, expectedly, “a woman joined to a man by marriage.” Therefore, a marriage, by definition, cannot consist of two men or of two women, so why all the nonsense over approving or prohibiting a “homosexual marriage?” One might as well consider banning the “marriage” of a porcupine with a tree or of a woman to a bowling ball.

Unfortunately, we in the United States have never named an official national language, so I’ve dealt with the one in which I’ve noticed this uproar reported. It would be interesting for citizens and other residents that speak mainly Amharic, Bantu, Chinese, Dutch, Estonian, etc. to determine what their lexicons make of the muddle. As of this writing, though, our laws are still formulated in English, so perhaps my argument suffices.

My advice is that proponents and opponents of the legalized union of persons of the same sex agree upon a new word and not seek to transmogrify one that is well-defined, not to mention sacred to many.

Yves.