According to Cornell University Law School, the definition of "marriage" in the United States Code is as follows: "The word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." This, as of May 31, 2012, was ruled "unconstitutional" by a federal court*, but is still being reviewed and, as such, is still United States Code.
According to Mirriam-Webster, "marriage" means "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."
MacMillan Dictionary says "a married person has a husband or wife."
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "marriage" as "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife".
In 2008, the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PCUSA) voted to retain the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In 2010, they voted to change the definition to be only "two people".
According to Dictionary.com, "marriage" is defined as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Indeed, so clear and offensive is this definition that 65,000 people have signed a petition to change the definition ... because we all know how it currently is defined.
It's clear. Abundantly clear. Everyone knows it. We get it. Marriage has a definition. The aim is not "marriage equity", but to redefine what we call "marriage". And yet, when I say so, there's a fight. Why is that?
* Please note: According to Fox News, "Two of the three judges who decided the case Thursday were Republican appointees, while the other was a Democratic appointee. Boudin was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, while Judge Juan Torruella was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch is an appointee of President Bill Clinton." Those of you seeking to elect Mitt Romney with a view to judge appointments, please keep this in mind. These judges were, in the majority, appointed by those you would classify as "on our side".