Letter to the Editor
Webster on marriage
Published Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Nov. 12, 2008
To the editor:
I thought I would use the dictionary to make a point. In 1828, Noah Webster, the great American lexicographer, published “An American Dictionary of the English Language,” arguably the most impressive dictionary ever published.
“Marriage” is defined in this original dictionary as: “The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.”
Purity of purpose was absolutely a part of Noah’s philosophy. However, in today’s Webster’s New World College Dictionary, marriage is defined as: “1. the state of being married; relation between spouses; married life; wedlock; matrimony 2. the act of marrying; wedding 3. the rite or form used in marrying 4. any close or intimate union ...” We have Horace Mann (circa 1840s), the so-called father of progressive education, to thank for removing the spirit of constitutionalism and biblical references from collegiate dictionaries.
On Nov. 4, California became the 28th state to adopt a constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage. All too often, people rationalize, justify and benefit at the expense of others without ever thinking the consequences through. State by state, we are forced to take pause and act, to preserve heritage and for the sake of a nation.
Footnote: Noah Webster only coined one word — demoralize — which means: “To corrupt or undermine the morals of; to destroy or lessen the effect of moral principles on; to render corrupt in morals.” You can experience the demoralization of America easy enough; turn on a television set. Noah Webster may have been America’s first victim of “genericide” when the Merriam brothers lost trademark protection of the “Webster” name, the brand that had became synonymous with the dictionary. If Noah were alive today, what might he think about his namesake on today’s dictionaries?
God bless this United States of America.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
"State by state, we are forced to take pause and act, to preserve heritage and for the sake of a nation."
does this mean we should reinstitute slavery because it's part of this nation's heritage? how about not allowing women to vote?
popcorn time, round 2!
I suspect that you are trying to say that we are well on our way to ceasing generative powers of reproduction by supporting gay marriage. Ok, that is my assumption. But your point is not clear. As for the dictionary, its definitions change with time. And facts don't. History is truth and you can't change history. Facts are facts. One fact is that there is no law in the Bible pertaining to marriage. The Jewish Talmud establishes a marriage contract. The Council of Trent realized that their was no Biblical law pertaining to marriage and made marriage a sacrament. Our government makes law pertaining to the contractual issues of marriage. Ecclesiastical law, well, that is debatable considering your understanding of your faith as opposed to my understanding of my faith.
Mainline denominations are split down the middle on the acceptance of same-sex marriage. Sometimes what you call heritage is a misrepresentation of what constitutionally is established and why it is established. Heritage changes all the time. It takes three generations for an immigrant to lose their heritage. My kids are third generation and they have no idea of their heritage. I was third generation and I had no idea. My wife was second generation and she grew up with the old ways.
America is a melting pot but sadly it is returning to the old ways. That is a step back. America is about progression. We did not become the greatest power on earth without progress. Progress is about change and it has much to do with reason. Without either we stagnate.
Dictionary definitions change with time. And so does the interpretation of the Bible. Translations have changed the original text from the beginning and the original text no longer exists. So we are left with a continual effort to interpret the Bible. Even interpreting the Bible literally is reading someone's interpretation. The problem is that to many believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Many others believe that it is what it says to you that is the Word of God. Those believing that it is what it says to you are those that use reason to discover the living Word. Jesus Christ came to abolish the law. Read his parables and you will discover the living Word. Living as in changing.
Over time history and science has given us reason to change what we believe.
My wife once demonstrated in church to those who thought they knew God, that they did not. She had them all write their perceptions on a piece of paper and she put them in a box. When she opened the box it was empty. If you are Jewish, you refer to g-d, because you do not know God's name. The Bible states that you do not know God. All your experiences, your upbringing, your association with a religion is all that you have to understand God. But no one knows God. It is all in your perception. You can not describe what nothing is. Nor do you have any means to describe God.
I still say the whole business of government handing out special benefits to people for being married, is the real problem here.
I've been with the same woman for 16 years. We have 3 children together, but since we're not married, she can't share her health insurance, or any other such benefits granted to "married" couples.
We shouldn't be "coerced" into being married by the government, to get those benefits. We shouldn't be punished for not being married. We shouldn't have to pay higher taxes, because we didn't give some "holy vows".
I was married twice before, and they weren't worth the paper they were written on. The only winners, were the divorce attorneys. I believe our relationship is stronger now, because we get up each day and choose to remain together, not because of some hollow vows and promises.
There'd be fewer divorces, if less people felt forced or enticed into them, with financial incentives.
Fix the benefits system. Let God and the churches worry about marriages.
Lets not stop with just Marriage of same sex couples! After all, Who are we to judge and how could it possibly effect the sanctity of your marriage, and what business is it of yours anyway how someone else defines marriage? Polygamy has such a,.. well, negative twang to it doesn't it? Lets call it numerically diverse unions. Yeh that's the ticket,.. and incest, hey, if I have documentation to prove I had my tubes tied then what's it to you? A sister can love her brother in a romantic way just like any other couple. Just because you call it sick does not make it so, anymore than bigots and homophobes that voted for Prop.8 make homosexual marriage unnatural by voting against it. Just because "In-house" marriages makes you uncomfortable does not give you the right of hate speech. Once there were laws against marriage out side of one race, but it was decided that if a baby, a human being (God's own image) could come from such a union then it was logical that Marriage between any race of a man an woman was sanctified. But logic is not part of the pro-gay agenda, it is confusion, it is absolute confusion.
... and here I was starting to like your "numerically diverse unions!"
What are you so afraid of...I have never had a gay person try to knock on my door and recruit me or my children...but you know who has??
BTW: Pedophilia and Beastiality have victims the law needs to protect...not the same as consenting adults... And if 8 adults want to marry each other insurance companies can easily charge for additional spouses on their own scale...People are losing their houses and lively hood...why are millions of dollars spent arguing this??...
The slippery sloap here isn't demoralization...it is the government regulating morality that has no victims...what's next porn...meat...not going to Church...women showing their arms? Which religions' morals should the government choose to follow...Christians'...Muslims'...Mormons'?? Why stop at homosexuals...let's not let Atheists marry or don't let a Jew marry a Catholic?
webster wrote that back when marriages actually meant somthing. some people take it seriously, but a good seventy five percent who do marry end up in divorce. i doubt divorce was even acceptable when marriage was created. straight people are the ones that brought the most harm to the word marriage by not respecting the true values of the whole way of life upon being wed. i could'nt care less if gays marry each other. anytime there is a wedding, there's a 75% chance that it's a joke anyway. who's really to blame for killing the whole holyness of weddings? it's just what this world has become with all the luxuries of modern day technology and living conditions.
Very easy solution.
According to our newly elected President, we have 57 states in the USA. 86% of America believes in God. That only leaves 14%. Why not divide the USA equally and give them their part? They can make up any rules they want and live with or marry who ever or what ever. Now do the math. 57 divided by 14%= 7.14 states. Round to the nearest whole number and call it 7. Give them 7 of the 57 states and no more worries. God Bless The Other 50 States.
I am currently, and have only been married once. I believe two men, or two women should be able to form civil partnerships to be able to receive the 'benefits' of married couples, but i do not believe it should be labeled marriage. I have cats, dogs , goldfish, too many names so lets call all house pets dogs. generalizing the term, I feel, detracts from its meaning. I think any truly committed gay couple should have all the rights and tax benefits of heterosexual couples, and that being said, I think open polygamy should be allowed also. sad our society looks less on a man that marries all of his 'baby's mamas' instead of having affairs and numerous children out of wedlock. My religion doesn't advocate polygamy, but why should everyone be stuck to my religious rules, i chose them, not everyone else.
Marriage historically was based on economic value. Only in a limited number of cultures did woman have any property rights. Woman were viewed as the husband's property. Arranged marriages common. This was the view less than a 150 years ago and is still the view in many countries today. The manner in which each culture views marriage is determined by the majority of that culture. In the US, each State can define it. Two States have changed their cultural view of defining marriage. Religions define who they will allowed to be married. Changing a cultural and religious definition is not an easy task.
Did anyone notice the years these definitions were created? Has anyone noticed what year we currently are in? Please, join this century, at least.
TWFJR: Your lofty response is quite pleasing to the ear. The problem is you are wrong is so many area. You need to go back and read the Bible and do some basic study. I'll point out one MAJOR error. You said "Jesus Christ came to abolish the law." That is totally wrong. The Bible says "Jesus Christ came to FULFILL the law." I could go on but won't.
The definition of marriage is not confined to humans. Chefs "marry" flavors when they cook.
Christians don't follow all of the laws in the Bible, so why is this particular one so important? The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination, just like it says being gay is an abomination, but Red Lobster and other shellfish restaurants thrive in Christian neighborhoods. Why is that? Why do they feel they can pick and choose which "sins" are okay with them and which are not? Why don't they stone Bristol Palin to death if they really believe in the Bible because she obviously won't be a virgin on her wedding night?
Of course, all of this is moot because the Bible isn't the Constitution, is it? The Bible doesn't run our nation. The Constitution does, and it has nothing to do with religion. The very First Amendment forbids it, so to force meaningless religious rules down the throats of the citizens of a secular state is incredibly UNConstitutional. If you want to live in a state where religion rules, move to Saudi Arabia, but until then, just keep your religious laws off the books of a free nation that honors the rights of ALL its citizens, regardless of religious affiliation.
Words evolve over 100 years. Those of you, on both sides, that continue to argue semantics and throw out "Here's a definition I found in THIS dictionary," aren't providing anything meaningful to this discussion.
This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever seen. Of course someone in the 1840s said marriage was just between a man and a woman. Guess what? Times change. This issue is a civil rights issue, and this letter is an ignorant, bigoted piece of trash.
I read and heard from many people that the reason the gay marriage was voted no was the large amount of black voters in the state were against it. My personal feelings are if you can't reproduce naturally as a couple, you should'nt be married. You need a female plug to go with the male plug don't ya.
Now if ya want to leave your insurance to a member of the same sex, it's your money. But not medical benifits.
Doris, if you go on to read the New Testament you will find that the things that go into your mouth are fine - it is the things that come out that are unclean and defile.
Matthew 15:11
"PAIRAGE", I say! None of the chalky aftertaste of religion that you find so offensive.
Come on. let's change! When confronted with a conflict, just say "change". That word alone should any argument in the universe!
Thanks for perpetuating a racist fallacy, rooster. Blacks accounted for just 10% of votes cast in the general election in CA. True, if a large majority of them had voted no, it was close enough they could have decided this one. In fact 70% of blacks voted yes on 8.
Another fact: had all blacks in CA stayed home, prop 8 still would have passed and Obama still would have easily carried CA.
Truth: there is plenty of blame to be shared among the racially diverse 52% of the CA electorate who allowed themselves to be persuaded by a hefty propaganda campaign funded almost entirely by religious interests with no business interfering in civil politics.
Using an upper-class white man who injected his religious beliefs into dictionary definitions as the basis for argument in this letter doesn't really make the case, if you ask me...
monkeyman, no racism there, just stating that most experts say the black vote is why the proposition didn't pass. You always seem to toss that race card out there. And I wasn't even discussing nobama carrying the state, where did that come from. Your just plain angry are'nt ya.
OK, once in a while I repeat myself (well...more than once in a while), and I know I posted this on the gay protest thread last night, but it fits this one as well, so here it goes again:
A few years ago, the Atlantic Monthly carried a report that broke divorce rates down by religious faith. Atheists and the non-religious actually fell somewhere in the middle, Catholics and Mormons had the lowest rates.
But here's the rub: the highest divorce rate among religious groups is held by Pentecostals. (No explanation was given, but I suspect all that snake handling has something to do with it.)
Anyway, if you're truly worried about lowering divorce, then end the abomination of Pentecostal Marriage. Surely we can all agree on this.
"With the rate of Gayness in this country and the abortion rate, the population of the country is going to fade away. With in a hundred years we will be lucky to have 10,000,000 people in the US."
And, um, this is supposed to be a bad thing?
jroosterdude wrote: "My personal feelings are if you can't reproduce naturally as a couple, you should'nt be married. "
There are plenty of male/female couples that can't reproduce. So you're saying they shouldn't be able to get married?
Just quoting the Bible, sherry29. Your scripture was rather meaningless and irrelevant to the subject at hand though. Is there something you don't like about what the Bible says? A woman not being a virgin on her wedding night is grounds for stoning her to death. (I guess it's okay for men.) The Bible uses the same word for the sin of eating shellfish as they use for the sin of being gay, but most Christians don't have a problem eating shellfish. At least I don't see any anti-shellfish rallies going on outside seafood places, and laws passed based on the Bible's claim that eating shellfish is an abomination. If you're going to go point to rules in a book, you can't cherry pick them for rules you agree with and reject those you don't. Well, you CAN, but your argument gets weaker with every rejected "sin" like eating shellfish and stoning women who are