Merriam Webster Redefines "Marriage"

[elder999]

The latest and greatest from the ever excellent Merriam Webster English Language Technical Manual:

mar·riage Pronunciation: \&#712;mer-ij, &#712;ma-rij\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry Date: 14th century 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 marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Seen here, and soon to appear at a Justice of the Peace near you.....:lol:

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

Great news as someone who enjoys reading Dictionary definations(My father likes it to) I think way back I said in the Gay right marriage thread The root word of French orgin Marier did not mean man and a woman but simply to join together.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The only solution to the 'marriage' question is that the government needs to get out of the business of recognizing marriages at all. It's a religious thing, and up to the religions in question to define what it is or is not. Two people are are 'married' by their church, or who simply wish to register a civil partnership, could do with with the state. States have no business saying what a marriage is or is not - even for normal marriages. Just register the partnership and move on. End of problem.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

The only solution to the 'marriage' question is that the government needs to get out of the business of recognizing marriages at all. It's a religious thing, and up to the religions in question to define what it is or is not. Two people are are 'married' by their church, or who simply wish to register a civil partnership, could do with with the state. States have no business saying what a marriage is or is not - even for normal marriages. Just register the partnership and move on. End of problem.

I was under the impression the states were in the business for the money?
If the states get out of it and leave it to the different religions, wouldn't that mean a marriage tax would be right around the corner?

 

[Omar B]

Marriage is not about government or religion, it's about two people in love. I'm glad the definition in the dictionary had been changed. There are many who are atheists (like myself) does that mean I can't get married? Government and needs to get out of the way of people's way so they can live their lives, if it's not causing your financial or physical harm it's non of your concern who someone shares their life with.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Clearly Webster is run by the Socialist-Liberal-Puppet Government! Lol

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I was under the impression the states were in the business for the money?
If the states get out of it and leave it to the different religions, wouldn't that mean a marriage tax would be right around the corner?

There are many legal advantages to being 'married' in the eyes of the law. Taxation, inheritance, life and health insurance, adoption, bankruptcy, division of property, credit obligations and other considerations in a divorce, and so on.

However, these could be obviated by substituting the term 'domestic partner' for the term 'spouse' and carry on as usual.

As to the tax benefit enjoyed by married couples, it ain't all it's cracked up to be. But it could/would be the same if 'domestic partners' became the new term for 'married'.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Marriage is not about government or religion, it's about two people in love. I'm glad the definition in the dictionary had been changed. There are many who are atheists (like myself) does that mean I can't get married? Government and needs to get out of the way of people's way so they can live their lives, if it's not causing your financial or physical harm it's non of your concern who someone shares their life with.

Before governments recognized 'marriage', it was strictly a religious ceremony. Two people being 'married' meant nothing to the government, it was between the people involved and their Church. Of course, in some cases, the Church was the government, or greatly in collusion with it.

Marriage is about love - and the state has no idea what love is, can't regulate it, can't tax it, and can't authorize or proscribe it. Therefore, it oughtn't be in the business of recognizing it. Let the state recognize the domestic partnership. Let the person's church recognize their marriage. If they happen to be atheists, they I guess they recognize their own marriage. Is that a problem? You need some government agency to say 'Yea, verily, we accept that you two blokes are in love?'

Let the churches deal with marriage, and the state deal with domestic partnerships. Everybody happy.

 

[Twin Fist]

agreed, get the government out of marraige

 

[elder999]

I've posted my views on this elsewhere, somewhat repeatedly:

Well, I've "married" some couples-there's a phrase I use to point out what "marriage is":I don't marry you, the "church" dosen't marry you, the government doesn't marry you, and God doesn't marry you.You marry each other.

Marriage is a covenant - a formal, solemn and binding agreement.

That said, in our society-indeed, in most societies today, there are two marriages-the one that constitutes that covenant-whether it be before a priest, minister, high priestess, medicine man, shaman, rabbi, imam, ship's captain(though this is a special case, as all the other's might be), Buddhist monk, Taoist priest, Shinto priest, President of a biker club, minister, minister in the Church of Universal Life, heirophant, mednicant, officiant, facilitator, best friend, or simply the couple (or more!) exchanging vows on a mountain top under a star-filled night sky.

People exchange promises to each other, and try to keep them while they live together. That's a marriage.

The other form of marriage is the one that sometimes requires blood-tests, and usually requires fees, a license, and a certification from the state-though, in some states, any officiant (see above) can obtain (for a fee) the ability to certify marriages-just as I have in New Mexico- so there may in fact be only one ceremony-just as there may be if they choose to be wed before a Justice of the Peace, ship's captain (special!), or other person of legal authority. This marriage has little to do with the covenant, and everything to do with property rights, custody, legal name changes, legitimacy of heirs, credit, insurance, etc., etc., etc. Is such an institution necessary? I dunno. It's been that way for more than a hundred years now ; once, you got "married by the church," or by "common law" (see:couple on mountaintop exchanging vows, etc..) and that was it. Now, the state is involved, and taxes and records are involved, and that may be a good thing-as in the lady in the Bentley with the vanity plates that say "WASHIS"-or a bad thing, as in the man who owned that Bentley with the vanity plates....:lol:

Or "good thing" as in simply being to sit with your loved one in the hospital, making decisions about their care and holding their hand while they die, and remaining legally able to stay in your home, raise your kids,and collect insurance and pensions.


At the end of the day, though-marriage boils down to that one thing: people exchange promises, and try to keep them while they make a life together. Indeed, those promises are the very basis of their life together. That's pretty much it, IMNSHO......

 

[Omar B]

Before governments recognized 'marriage', it was strictly a religious ceremony. Two people being 'married' meant nothing to the government, it was between the people involved and their Church. Of course, in some cases, the Church was the government, or greatly in collusion with it.

Marriage is about love - and the state has no idea what love is, can't regulate it, can't tax it, and can't authorize or proscribe it. Therefore, it oughtn't be in the business of recognizing it. Let the state recognize the domestic partnership. Let the person's church recognize their marriage. If they happen to be atheists, they I guess they recognize their own marriage. Is that a problem? You need some government agency to say 'Yea, verily, we accept that you two blokes are in love?'

Let the churches deal with marriage, and the state deal with domestic partnerships. Everybody happy.

And just like Government can't say what love is, neither can religion to me. I don't believe in religion so I'm not gonna have god, Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny make decisions for me, or should they for anyone else. Your argument is crunched in the idea that everyone is religious and needs a god or anything outside of the two individuals say "ok, guess you are in love."

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And just like Government can't say what love is, neither can religion to me. I don't believe in religion so I'm not gonna have god, Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny make decisions for me, or should they for anyone else. Your argument is crunched in the idea that everyone is religious and needs a god or anything outside of the two individuals say "ok, guess you are in love."

No, not at all. If you have no religion, then you don't need anyone to say you're in love, or to perform a marriage ceremony either - what would be the point? Just go to the courthouse and register your domestic partnership. You're 'married' because the two of you recognize it yourselves. Simple as that.

Just as the state does not need to be in the marriage business, if you're not seeking religious approval of your marriage, don't get one. You're married just on your own say-so. Should it be any other way?

 

[crushing]

Clearly Webster is run by the Socialist-Liberal-Puppet Government! Lol

Why would they allow a Libertarian to re-write the definition of marriage?

 

[CuongNhuka]

Why would they allow a Libertarian to re-write the definition of marriage?

Were did I say Libertarian? I said Liberal, if thats what you're talking about...

 

[crushing]

Were did I say Libertarian? I said Liberal, if thats what you're talking about...

You didn't say Libertarian until then.

To be more specific: Why would a "Socialist-Liberal-Puppet Government" have a Libertarian re-write the definition of marriage?

I know you meant it as a joke. I am playing along.

Marriage is not about government or religion, it's about two people in love.

Why is love required for such a covenant? Can't we just leave the "why they get married" up to the consenting adults and not put our own demands upon them?

 

[elder999]

Why is love required for such a covenant? Can't we just leave the "why they get married" up to the consenting adults and not put our own demands upon them?

Indeed. I've observed that the best answer to that very question is oftenWho knows?

 

[CuongNhuka]

You didn't say Libertarian until then.

To be more specific: Why would a "Socialist-Liberal-Puppet Government" have a Libertarian re-write the definition of marriage?

I know you meant it as a joke. I am playing along.

I was making fun of TF who seems obssed with rooting out proof that Liberals are secretly taking over the world through Socialism and a Puppet government. You kinda killed the joke.

 

[crushing]

I was making fun of TF who seems obssed with rooting out proof that Liberals are secretly taking over the world through Socialism and a Puppet government. You kinda killed the joke.

You flatter me as I am not so powerful as an individual, but collectively, we have done the job!

 

[Omar B]

That's what I'm saying, religion or government have no place in people's private affairs.

 

[arnisador]

Cool!

As to love, that's a relatively modern view of marriage...it was usually about property rights, social status, etc.