For thousands of years, there have been words whose meanings have remained the same. Among them are:

truth – that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality;

light – the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible


wrong – not correct or true.

To try to manipulate these types of definitions to include other branch-off definitions would confuse so many things in life. Does the word “male” include persons with female genital only? Nope. What if I insisted that the word homosexual mean a person who is attracted to those of the opposite sex? They, I insist that you call me a straight homosexual? Yeah, it’s just not gonna work.

So, when people say they don’t want to change the definition of “marriage,” it makes sense. A lawyer friend of mine said that changing the definition of “marriage” is a litigious lawyer’s dream. Imagine having to redefine all the words associated with marriage. Not just make up new words, like partner, but what, then, is the definition of wife? Is that only related to a heterosexual couple? Why can’t the members of a same-sex union be called wife and husband? Which would serve as which? How is that labeled in legalese? It would have to be done. Some have said, “Well, that’s silly. The definition of “male” is obviously fixed.” Oh, is it?

Isn’t that what we just did to the definition of “marriage” by calling two people of the same sex “married”? Imagine the cost of marriage and/or divorce after all this!

No one is saying that, because one is homosexual, one cannot find a person of the opposite sex and get married. But, that’s what the proponents of this business are seeming to say. They compare it to black people not being allowed to marry whites.

Well, there are several problems here: first, it was those in the government (you know, with all the real power) who kept those people from marrying people who have different skin color as them. They made that “no interracial marriage” stuff up (same with ruling that the Jim Crow laws were constitutional, etc.) They do that a lot. We need to keep an eye on those bozos…and why do we want them in the business of defining marriage at all? Used to be up to the individuals and their pastors/preachers/priests/etc. and the government had no say. Just thinking out loud here…and, as usual, digressing…

Second, those people were trying to marry in the original definition of the word. In the dictionary, it never specified what color people had to be…just that the couple consisted of one male and one female.

To say that rights are being denied, one must specify the right and how it’s being denied. Zero people are even arguing that gay people are being denied the actual right of marrying. The just have to exercise the right as it’s actually defined.

If you want to ADD something, that’s a different topic. Then, we head into civil unions, which is another topic for another day. But, let’s be real and get to the crux of the issue. The family unit, comprised of a mother, a father, and children is THE cornerstone for any civilization. The argument has to be about how to strengthen that, not how to make people feel good about themselves with random rhetoric. This also applies to those who are heterosexual who have done plenty already to destroy the sanctity of marriage…let alone redefining the word.

If you feel like the word “marriage” is insulting, you have to keep one thing in mind. It’s not about you. Get over it.

It’s about the reality that EVERY society that abandoned the sanctity of the core family unit went straight in the garbage disposal. This is not hyperbole. It’s the past. It could be our future.

If you are one who wishes for the cornerstone of civilization to shift to accommodate your new definition, ask yourself this: Is the knowledge that your desire to change the very definition of a word worth the death of the entire nation? The result has typically ended in barbaric tyranny, and no one exercises their God-given rights in those.

And that’s the truth.