No more redefining of ‘gay,’ ‘marriage’

No more redefining of ‘gay,’ ‘marriage’

I’ve honestly had enough — enough of the Daily Herald splashing the words “gay” and same sex “marriage” all over the paper, and enough of the redefinition of these words. Semantics and the accurate use of words reflect on our collective intelligence as a nation, and are important to me as an educator.

As children we could sing “Deck the Halls” without having to explain that by “gay apparel” we mean our festive, party clothes, since “gay” really means happy. I don’t have a problem with the word lesbian, since I don’t believe it ever meant anything else, but “gay”? Nobody’s happy all the time. Why can’t we just create a new word — one that isn’t already defined?

And let’s talk about the word “marriage.” I’m sorry if it’s not politically correct — and where did that phrase come from? Whose politics decided what is correct? I do agree that it’s not the government’s job to decide if “gay marriage” is a good or bad institution, but it’s not the media’s job either.

Solely by definition marriage intimates the union, the actual union of a man and woman, in a committed relationship. It’s not just two people of any gender who love each other, and are committed to loving each other. Physical union, with the inherent possibility that offspring may result, is a required component of marriage.

This physical union is how the human race has survived and flourished, and it requires parts that “match up.” Think about it. Since the phrase “civil union” seems unacceptable to many, and really isn’t accurate anyway, based on my aforementioned definition of the word “union,” let’s create a new word for this as well. It worked for “ginormous.” Any suggestions?

After all, we can always add to the dictionary. Let’s not rewrite it.

Judi Ann Fuller

Naperville