Since Miss California’s mumble-tastic response to Perez Hilton’s question about gay nuptials, there has been a lot of chatter in the media (again) about the definition of marriage.
A recurring argument by the traditional-marriage crowd, or, as I like to call them, the Anti-Gay Relationship Orthodoxy (AGRO), is that marriage has always been defined as a union between one man and one woman. And guess what? They’re right! In every dictionary I checked, marriage is primarily defined as a union between one man and one woman. What they don’t say is that most words have multiple definitions, such as the words in my trusty American Heritage 3rd Edition, which additionally defines marriage as, simply, “a close union.”
This is not the only problem with the AGRO argument.
Whenever somebody asks me what the definition of marriage should be, my first response is always, “It depends on what your definition of definition is.” Are we talking about a religious definition, a legal definition or a lay definition? Because they’re not always the same thing.
Take the word “mayhem.”
“Mayhem” has a different legal definition than lay. The California Penal Code defines mayhem as any act that “maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body. . . or renders it useless.” However, the lay definition, which is to say, the standard dictionary definition, is less restrictive. There’s no need for someone to be dismembered or maimed to satisfy the lay definition of “mayhem.” It can just mean “chaos” or “riotous havoc,” as in, “Yo, dude–it was total mayhem in the Jonas Brothers mosh pit last night!”
Now take the word “marriage.”
The differences between the religious definition of marriage and the legal and lay versions are profound: The religious definition is a sacred union between one man, one woman and an invisible man with a white beard sitting on a throne in the sky.
Not true with the lay or legal definitions. When it comes to legally recognizing marriage, there is no requirement that it be sacred or include God. As far as the lay version goes, I certainly won’t be letting that crusty old God grouch into the Decker connubial bed any time soon. The Guy’s Dutch ovens reek like sewage spills off the coast of Smellgium for crissake.
So, I ask again, to which definition of marriage are the AGROs referring?
If it’s the religious definition of marriage, then sure, that should stand as is. The Catholic Church has every right to consider marriage as a sacred union between one man, one woman and one hairy old deity with a nuclear gastrointestinal system.
If it’s a legal definition, well that’s a no-brainer also. Laws and their definitions change all the time, and there is no reason we can’t change this law so that it’s, you know, humane and fair.
If it’s the dictionary definition of marriage you seek, well dig this: It doesn’t matter what the dictionary says! Dictionaries are not the boss of us. We are the bosses of dictionaries. Because their definitions are based on how we use words in the field, so we, as a society, can define any word any way we want.
The AGROs talk about the definition of marriage as though words are set in stone and dictionaries are flawless. However, dictionaries, like bibles, are imperfect. They are written by human beings who bring their prejudices and predilections to the tome.
“The English language is changing all the time and at an increasingly dizzy pace,” says language expert Bill Bryson. “In 1987 when Random House produced the second edition of its unabridged dictionary, it included 50,000 words that had not existed and 75,000 new definitions of old words.”
Point being, even if the dictionary definition of marriage had only one entry and that entry said, “Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that’s it, nobody else can get married, we really mean it now so don’t even think about trying to change it or we will send bloodhounds out to track you down and eat your face”–we could still change it.
Samuel Johnson, the genius lexicographer, once wrote, “No dictionary of a living tongue can ever be perfect, since, while it is hastening toward publication, some words are budding and some are fading away.” Note Johnson’s gorgeously apropos phrase “a living tongue,” which is not to say that language is this grotesque, wet, squirmy red thing, but that it is alive, ever-growing, ever-changing.
Johnson, incidentally, is the quintessential example of how dictionaries are subject to their authors’ human failings. His magnum opus, A Dictionary of the English Language, had a myriad of problems: It contained several spelling inconsistencies. The etymologies were widely criticized. Johnson was given to fits of editorializing. “And his proofreading was strikingly careless, [as when] he defined garret as a ‘room on the highest floor of the house’ and cockloft as ‘the room over the garret,’” Bryson wrote.
So please, please spare us this red-herring question of what the definition of marriage is. It doesn’t matter. What matters is what it should be and what it should be is this: “A union between any two (or more) people who love each other (or not) and want to be bound together for life (or at least a few months) because, you know, it’s their business, so butt out or we will release the hounds to bite off your face!”
Anything less is an abomination.
Originally published in San Diego CityBeat
Ed, I’ve enjoyed reading dictionaries from childhood on, and I’m a marriage equality activist so it’s hardly surprising your column was of interest.
In elementary school I noticed that the kids who didn’t think much, and therefore did not have much to say, frequently resorted to dictionary definitions to pad their papers and to substitute for missing intellectual horsepower.
Later on as a college professor I noticed the same in some of my students. It does not surprise me that stupid and/or lazy people hang on to the same obvious tactics used in so self limiting a fashion in childhood. The reason this AGRO crowd clings so tenaciously to the cherry-picked marriage definitions, I think, is because they don’t think much and don’t have much to say.
Mr. Decker,
It is very much enjoyable to read your Sordid Tales articles as seen in City Beat magazine. This is not an attempt at correction or to push any personal agenda but to simply add to your knowledge base, if possible you may consider it as such. Not being a wordsmith prohibits me presenting a valid argument as to who’s definitions are right or wrong. Dictionary entries are continually added to in the same way as encyclopedia entries to reflect additional meanings and achievements yet carefully presented to not change the fundamental meanings of those entries. The focus of your recent article seemed to present the definition of the word marriage. Perhaps a quick look at a thesaurus and gaining knowledge of synonyms and antonyms of the word “marriage” may shed a more thorough perspective in word’s literary usage,. Have you ever heard the saying “marriage of convenience”, for example?
Some off the City Beat contributors seem to be climbing a soapbox of political commentary and/or take opportunity to inject such attitude. Tom Tomorrow is rather fun and entertaining. There was a song many years ago that presented the lyric “A politician wants a vote”. Are there some writers there fishing for votes, or willing to pay for them? The City Beat of years ago was more like the recent “April Fools” edition. Seemed like old times. You’re welcome to reply to set me straight in this matter.
Take care,
Curious reader
Mr. Decker,
The title of your column reminded me of President Clinton’s quibbling over the definition of the work is while denying he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
If the definition of marriage doesn’t matter, then why are same-sex couples making such a big deal about being able to call themselves married as the term is defined by the laws of the state they live in? If there’s no single definition of marriage, why should couples—either gay or straight—care whether the society they live in considers them to be married, as long as they—using their own definition of marriage—consider themselves to be married? If a couple kissed each other and said “OK, we’re married,” then started living as a married couple, would they enjoy any fewer rights than a couple who were legally married?
They might not receive the respect from society that goes with being able to say they’re legally married, but some segments of society will never give some couples respect, regardless of the legal status of their relationship.
You spend your whole column arguing that there is no single definition for marriage, only to offer one yourself: “A union between any two (or more) people who love each other (or not) and want to be bound together for life (or at least a few months) because, you know, it’s their business, . . .”
But, don’t you think the Edwin Decker definition of marriage is a bit too restrictive? Why should marriage have to last “at least a few months”? Why shouldn’t a person be able to get married every weekend? And why should the union be limited to any two or more people? What if a person wants to marry his hamster, or his Labrador retriever, or his inflatable doll?
Mr. Decker had many good thoughtful presentations in his article about the meaning of the word marriage. He pounted out the differnces between the legal, lay, and religious meaning. His dictionary considerations are also clear studies of how English language changes over time and through use.
One wonders why he found it necessary to irreverently ridicule and lash out at God in four different places in an otherwise thoughtful treatise. Billions of people on this earth have a spritual belief in Yahway. Allah, Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, Buddha, etc. either as a personal god or a ruling figure of hope, peace, and morality in their lives.
Millions in CA and other states across the country who have a spiritual relationship with a god voted in favor of the non-religious term for marriage in our laws. They made that dicision at the polls in huge numbers, based on conscience, knowlege of their fellow citizens, and thoughtfule consideration.
Why did Mr. Decker find he had a need to lash out at their spiritual beliefs in a God of their religion as he layed out his definitions of a word. It demeans the writer in the eyes of many who read his words much more that it demeans his “invisible” god.
(This is not written in order for it to appear in your paper, but rather to reach Mr. Decker. after I was so disappointed in what he did in his artricle.)