I think a topic that rarely gets attention in the concerns of the average philosopher is language, and specifically the importance and consequences of semantics. "The importance of semantics" might be interpreted as some sort of oxymoron, ironically due to the semantic debate on how "semantics" is perceived in the vernacular. When one says "semantics", usually one thinks of an endless debate of futility and triviality. On the contrary I think semantics, that is, the study of linguistic development and the changes of the meaning of words, is an omnirelative factor in the establishment of true understanding. How we define words inevitably sets the tone of debate, and is an omnirelative factor in the shaping of public policy.

One such mainstream semantic debate is over the word "marriage", and whether the meaning behind this word encompasses unions beyond the originally perceived prerequisite of the two parties of a man and woman. I think an honest discourse on the semantics of this word is truly an important step in the formation of public policy regarding gay marriage. What we need to first do is to analyze exactly how language evolves, and exactly how a word in particular can change meaning and significance in the vernacular, and lastly how our dictionaries and public policies should reflect this vernacular (or even at all).

First, it is my contention that language evolves from the bottom-up. In other words, the language dictates the dictionary, rather than the dictionary dictating the language. A language is a communication tool; specifically an agreed upon system of rules and laws as to make the gaps of linguistic subjectivity minimal. This subjectivity is especially so in the context of abstraction. That is, rudimentary language was developed for a very specific evolutionary purpose of survival; 'tiger' and 'snake' are useful tools in both the survival of the species and in the management of hunting tactics. With cultural evolution, also came linguistic evolution. In which order the former and latter came in the processes of evolution is irrelevant to the topic at hand, all we need to know is that there is some sort of connection between the two. However, abstract language has an inherent level of subjectivity built into its very premise. As opposed to rudimentary language, when an abstract word like "love", "friendship", or in this case "marriage", the word is concocted from the speakers specific set of memories and conceptions of the word, and enter the ears of the listener who then connects it with his/her own very different set of memories, conceptions, and even subjective consciousness that associates the meaning with the word.

The idea of a language is an attempt at minimizing the gap of subjectivity of linguistic abstractions. The language (dictionary), is thus an attempt at expressing not a top-down approach (dictating) of language but a mere representation of a vernacular that best bridges the gap of subjectivity. In simpler terms, the definition of a given word is merely how it is perceived and used in the contemporary vernacular. As the vernacular evolves, so the dictionary is rewritten and definitions are reformed.

In the issue of gay marriage we need to trace the evolution of the word marriage and, more importantly, analyze the meaning that is perceived by the contemporary vernacular. Most people agree that gay couples deserve equal rights under the law as their heterosexual counterparts. The primary source of contention is behind the semantics of "marriage" (gay marriage vs. civil unions). A contention that seems to have no weight whatsoever, however, is that the word marriage in some sense has an objective and intrinsic value to its nature. That is, there is an argument that has no force whatsoever in the gay marriage debate, that the word marriage means one thing, and has always meant the same exact thing. On the contrary, at any given point in time, the meaning of "marriage" seemed to always be in a state of transition.

Before, marriage was largely seen as an economic institution. It was a union between man and woman, not necessarily in love but to fulfill economic and diplomatic extensions between families. Many young lovebirds at that time had the radical idea of "redefining" the word "marriage" to encompass true love, as opposed to a predetermined economic and diplomatic pact. We have all heard the stories, Romeo and Juliet perhaps the original, of this deviant group of young men and women rebelling against the existing institutions (usually their families) in rejecting their predetermined marriages to run away with the loves of their lives. As with any challenge to accepted norms, it was met with a reactionary hostility. Eventually, though, the vernacular encompassed love as the meaning behind marriage. Marriage was redefined.

Today, we seem to be finding another rebellion against accepted norms and values. This time, it is coming from the homosexuals. The contention is that marriage is now perceived in the contemporary vernacular to encompass two individuals in a symbolic union of love. More specifically, it is to be defined as 'the union of two lovers'. As opposed to, 'the union of a man and a woman in love'. Does the vernacular reflect this? Perhaps that is the job of lexicographers, not philosophers, to find out. But does it make sense to refuse to call the union of two lovers a marriage? We find that, under the current (or as the gay community contends, the former) definition of marriage, it is an inevitable consequence that we must reject calling, even in our minds, the idea that 'two lovers uniting' is a marriage. It follows:

1. Marriage is the union of a heterosexual couple in love.
2. A homosexual couple see each other as the one they love
3. A homosexual couple in love unite.
4. Thus, two lovers have united.
5. However, according to premise 1, this union is not marriage.
6. Therefore, two lovers uniting is not marriage.

If this strikes you as highly semantic, then my intention has come across. The point is that it is an exercise in semantics. Likewise, if the conclusion (6) does not seem right to your consciousness, then it may be said that the vernacular has evolved, and the semantics of "marriage" has changed once again. If you found the conclusion (6), that "two lovers uniting is not marriage" to somehow ring wrong, then vernacular of the word marriage has been changed to be perceived as "the union of two lovers"; therefore we must encompass all couples, heterosexual and homosexual, within the context of marriage.