Em & Lo's RSS Feed Em & Lo's Daily Email Feed Be Our Facebook Friend! Follow Us on Twitter!
Burlesque and Retro Lingerie

Good Vibes Spring Sex Toys

Buy on Amazon Kindle!

Amazon's Sexy Spring Dresses


Merriam-Webster Accused of Pro-Gay Agenda

Fri, Apr 3, 2009

Books, Pop Culture

dictionaryphoto by greeblie

While the rest of us were battling it out over gay marriage in courts, newspaper editorials, elections, marches, and barrooms across the country, a little company called Merriam-Webster was quietly making their own call. So quietly, in fact, that even though their dictionary updated the definition of marriage back in 2003 to include same-sex couples, it wasn’t until this month that anybody really noticed. That’s because the conservative site WorldNetDaily finally caught on to the fact that in M-W, marriage is no longer “reserved for the institution that has held families together for millennia.” Oh, that’s right: Dictionaries describe things as they actually are — rather than the way the small-minded minority wishes they were. (All the major dictionaries now include same-sex duos in their definition, although only two three four U.S. states do.) All of which confirms to us that anti-gay crusaders don’t read the dictionary nearly as often as they should. Next stop: sodomy.

‚ÄĘ This post is a part of Sundance Channel’s Naked Love Blog
‚ÄĘ Get the Naked Love RSS feed

, ,

 

3 Responses to “Merriam-Webster Accused of Pro-Gay Agenda”

  1. Andy Says:

    Hi Em and Lo:

    You are behind the times with regards to states that have embraced same-sex marriage: this morning, the Iowa Supreme Court overruled the ban on same-sex marriage in Iowa!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html?hp

  2. emandlo Says:

    We just realized that — and we couldn’t be happier! We’ll be posting about Iowa here on Monday…

  3. Andy Says:

    Now we’re all wrong again! Hooray Vermont! Vermont is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislature, oerriding the veto of the governor:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?hp


Leave a Reply