“To the exclusion of all others” is still generally approved of, especially if we are criticising the person who has not excluded others from their marriage. But more and more people are feeling more free to look outside their marriage for what they think they need.

As for “... entered into for life”, well that has been significantly rejected by large numbers of married people for a long time. It is true of course that some marriages cannot be held together despite the best efforts of both parties, but marriage as a temporary state is gaining supporters.

Two groups, the de facto couples and those in non-residential unions have rejected legal marriage altogether, at least temporarily, in favour of a relationship that looks like marriage but without the (minimum) legal statement that “I call upon the persons here present to witness that I take you as my lawful wedded husband/wife”).

And the most recent attempt at redefinition is the bit about “the union of a man and a woman...”. Would it make much difference if this also was revised?

Marriage could be redefined as “the union of two people entered into voluntarily”.  But would it be marriage?  Humpty Dumpty gives a clue in his discussion of why un-birthdays are better than birthdays.

“... And only one [day] for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!”

 

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said.

 

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”

 

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.

 

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

 

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things.”

 

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

Dale