But in the end for me, my definition of marriage doesn't include two people of the same sex.
I've never understood the thing where conservatives place so much emphasis on the definitions of words... To many conservatives, the questions around abortion mostly seem to hinge on definitions. Is a fetus "a human being" or "a life" or whatever, that kind of stuff. With marriage equality, same thing, they passionately insist that the definition of "marriage" doesn't include gay couples as if that is a substantive argument... Like somehow the people that write the dictionaries or somebody is the ultimate arbiter of what is a good policy and what is a bad policy?
The definitions of words carry no weight at all in a policy analysis. I don't even see how they possibly could. Words mean whatever people understand them to mean. I suppose if a word is being misused in some confusing way that could cause miscommunication, which could be a headache, but I can't figure out how any concern about the definition of a word could possibly rise to the level of importance in anybody's mind to outweigh any real-world policy costs or benefits.
Concepts and things certainly matter, and words can point at concepts and things, but it isn't the word that matters, it is the concept or the thing that matters... If tomorrow, we start calling chairs "tables" and calling tables "chairs," so long as everybody knows which one means which, that has no impact, does it?
It is like if we had to decide which of two employees to promote and instead of using their names, we called them employee 1 and employee 2. I list off all kinds of arguments about which one has more experience and leadership and communication skills and so forth, and you just base your whole analysis about how you feel about the numeral "2" that we just randomly assigned to him, which apparently you hate, so you want to promote 1...