|
Apart from the suspect argument to authority (are dictionary makers legal experts?), your line is a classic confusion of "is" and "ought" - a distinction that underlies liberalism of all shades. The whole world could agree that the term "marriage" currently describes a monogamous consenting union between one adult man and one adult woman, duly sanctioned in a church. But this would have precisely zero bearing on whether the meaning ought or ought not to be extended to any other relationships such as, say, temporary heterosexual unions (a la Trish Draper), or durable homosexual unions. The "oughts" are not even a question of law, let alone lexicography. Rather, the law should reflect our view of the oughts. And a small point - the dictionary-makers put the third point in precisely to separate it from the other two meanings. If, as you imply, it were to mean much the same as the two previous ones then there would be no point in them providing it.
| 
