|
As you point out, this is a legal question. Courts have a number of ways of determining the meaning of a term. In the first instance they will, of course, make recourse to an appropriate statutory definition (usually in the first few sections of the relevant Act). Since marriage appears not to be so defined, they would fall back on common law definitions. To the extent that this has ever been previously considered by courts, I expect it would have been resolved as meaning man and woman.
In the likely event that there has been no previous consideration of the question (since the question has never been thought to be in doubt until the last few years), the courts will fall back on other resources. They frequently use a dictionary in such cases.
Regarding the third Dictionary definition, it is generally the practice of the courts that when there are a list of definitions of like kind, followed by a more general definition, the latter is read with at least some regard to the preceding definitions. Of course, a court may choose not to do so.
Am I arguing from authority? No, merely pointing out that the criticism of Howard's claim that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman is, in fact, correct. Maybe next year marriage will be redefined to mean something else, at which point I would argue, if Howard repeated the claim, that it is incorrect.
| 
