It is true that the govt. cannot legislate morality, and thankfully so, but they should not also change the meaning of words. Mirriam Webster now has gone on record stating that ‘marriage’ should be redefined.
Once you go down this road, all that results is chaos. Words have always been the channel whereby bridges in cultures and understanding can be safely traveled. ‘Marriage’ for eons has not been challenged. It brings to mind the welding of opposites: man woman, male female, sun moon, light dark- not better but different.
Jacob had Rachel to wife…….. Joseph the husband of Mary……..Abraham and Sarah………..not Cheech and Chong- If I spoke of a ‘wife’ to a Japanese man, his mental image would be automatically ‘female.’ If a Russian spoke to a Brit of a ‘husband,’ the reference would be naturally ‘male.’ This is because there is a universal language where words mean things, and one does not need to jump through hoops to understand.
The issue is not whether Ms Pryce has ‘gained in understanding,’ a new concept of marriage, the issue is how dare she (and any other) change the meaning of a word. If two men want to hook up, go ahead, that’s none of my or the govt business; if a woman wants to hook up with a turtle, go ahead, but please do not say she can ‘marry’ a turtle. Choose another word, but please do not bastardize an already widely accepted word to suit an agenda.