Redefining Words

Chief Justice Roberts says that it seems like Gay Marriage supporters are trying to redefine the word "marriage".  Of course they are.  Words affect the way we think about things. Benjamin Whorf argued persuasively that we cannot really think about anything for which we do not have words.  We define new words, and redefine old ones, to represent new concepts and ways of thinking all the time.  It's how language evolves.  The word "gay" is an example.  A century ago, it meant something similar to "happy".   But about 50 years ago, it became a codeword for homosexual and before very long that use was "outed".  No longer does it mean what it meant when it was used to describe "The Gay Nineties".

I think if there was a collection of words which meant, concisely and unpejoratively, gay marriage, hetero marriage and nonspecific marriage, the issue of the moment would be much less controversial.  The number of people who are opposed to fully recognized civil unions is much smaller than those that object to redefining of the word.  I have some sympathy for that objection.  "Hetero marriage" is awkward and will refer to 95% of marriages from here on out.  But I think that battle is lost and "marriage" is now redefined as inclusive.  Do we really need words that refer to the specific types?  Not really.  Most uses of the word will remain as they were and in the very rare cases where we need to be more specific for some reason, the awkward version will suffice.  I think most people who grew up with the old definitions will be a little startled for the rest of our lives when a man refers to his husband or a woman to her wife.  But this surprise will eventually wane, and in a few decades it will be gone entirely.