The point is words can and do have more than one meaning and do evolve over time. If you mentioned you were having problems with your mouse, I'd think you were talking about a computer peripheral. Thirty years ago, someone might think your rodent was ill. I don't understand your comment about copyright. Do you call your mouse a point and click peripheral since the definition of mouse is already taken?
Do you have an objection against using a different word to describe homosexual contracts?
Are you suggesting we reinstate "Separate But Equal" again? Plessy v. Ferguson might cause some problems with that. Don't you think we've learned something from past civil rights issues?
Here's what I see as a few problems with playing definitional semantics... Where does it stop? Assume we use the term civil unions. Will this be restricted to same-sex couples or can opposite-sex couples choose this option as well? What do you call the spouses in this arrangement? Can you even use the term spouse? What about the children in these relationships? Will they be sons and daughters or male/female children of a civil union? Extend this on to other relationships such as aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Where's the stopping point? Don't you think the whole idea of using separate definitions is stigmatizing to those involved?
Can you imagine hearing a "mother of a same-sex partner in a civil union" introduce her "female child of her daughter's same-sex partner in a civil union"? Most folks won't bother with such nonsense and use traditional terms.
Yes they can and do in the social sphere. No problem. But in contract law, there is no ambiguity, Hence the need for a legal dictionary, which preserves the standard. How do you propose to get around the copyright?
I see no difference between gays wanting to use the word, 'marriage,' to define a contractual union between two members of the same sex and six heteros wanting to use the word, 'marriage,' to define a group union, where all men and women have equal access to each other. Yes, good question. Where do you draw the line? If the definition can be altered to include same sex unions, why not use the word, 'marriage' to define a union between a human and a goat -- or even a human and a whale? Do you see how wide the doorway is going to get once the gate is torn off its hinges?
"Are you suggesting we reinstate "Separate But Equal" again? "
Bananas are not equal to oranges, but they are both fruits. Yes, labels are needed, and there should be no ambiguity -- and 'civil rights' cannot overturn centuries of legal definitions. Why would a lemon want to call itself a peach?
"Can you even use the term spouse?"
Yes you can, but the court can't if they are referring to partners in a same-sex union. The word refers to the man or woman in a 'marriage.'
"Don't you think the whole idea of using separate definitions is stigmatizing to those involved?"
Nope! Why shouldn't a lemon be proud that it's a lemon?
"Most folks won't bother with such nonsense and use traditional terms."
You're probably right. There are no laws against that, except when dealing with legal matters. Free speech is protected.