It should not surprise anyone that the definition of the words are changing. A few hundred years ago, Rousseau proffered the unreliability of words because society itself was/is a construct. The radicalization of Rousseau in modernity has been proceeding apace ever since, and this is why the ideas are the most important thing we ought to consider.
It is interesting that Rousseau’s thought is influential on both the left and the right (in paleo-con, traditional circles).
While I am not impressed with the likes of Hannity, I will note that the 1828 Websters has this to say about the definition of the word:
“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 promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic fidelity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.”
There’s so much going on in this definition that I will refrain from the exegesis. Yet, the implications of this definition on the thinking on the left and right is profound; they find it an anathema.
