"Believing that marriage is a heterosexual institution": Factual Error?

Recently, an engaging discussion at the Minnesota Independent has brought up a very stern rebuke from one of its readers.

Your factual error is in believing that marriage is a heterosexual institution. You may believe this as a private moral view, but same sex marriage is a matter of fact in a number of countries as well as states in the US. Same sex marriage exists right now for many same sex couples whether you like it or not.

I believe the argument is that I use the term "marriage" to describe an institution between a man and a woman based solely on my own personal belief. There exists national and state governments which use the term to discuss same-sex couples, and these nations and states have much more cultural weight to throw around than little ol' me. My use of the term as only between a man and a woman, therefore, is contradicted by the fact that it is used to describe same-sex couples also.

First let me acknowledge what is true in that. That marriage is between a man and a woman is a part of my private morality. And it is true that my view is limited in political power to my advocacy and my own ballot in our democratic nation, in other words it seems to matter only to me. And it is true that my isolated view conflicts with a public view.

Its enough to make someone want to cower in deference. As lined up, the authors points lead to the inevitable conclusion that I was in error.

However, the author's facts are at times incomplete, and other times wrong.

Where are they incomplete?

Marriage's expectation of both genders is not just reliant on a lone private citizen moral view in saying what marriage is. In the state of Minnesota the law states marriage is between a man and a woman, and as DOMA states the definition for the federal government is the same. Both Minnesota and the Federal government explicitly limit marriage to being recognized in relationships with both genders. Citizens voting on this issue have time and time again re-affirmed that expectation. I may hold that belief, but it is incomplete to say it is just a belief.

What was downright wrong in the author's assertion?

The dictionary is as factual a representation of a definition as you are going to find, and if you look it up you’ll find that the definition of marriage is still properly given as between a man and a woman.

I'm not stuck in the 70's though, I know there is a reference for same-sex marriage in many recent dictionaries. But have you looked at the wording of that definition? It is simply referential to the primary definition, it simply says (in various ways) that it is marriage but for same-sex couples also.

So, there exist two definitions of the word (which is not uncommon in our language) documented by the dictionary. There isn't a single definition that applies to both same-sex couples and couples with both genders, there are in fact two defintions -- one for each. They sit side by side, and that coexistence contradicts the authors assertion that my usage is factually wrong because of how others use the term.

Let me put it this way, it may be a syntactical challenge that to insist on using the same word with a different definition than the one I’m using, but that is not a factual error. It may be an administrative challenge that different nations are giving out licenses with the same word on it but for a different institution based on a different use of the term.

The root issue remains, what is this institution of marriage, what humanitarian needs is it based in, and what does it intrinsically support and recognize and what does it not (in other words what is the scope of the institution). Given the two definitions, which should we use, and why?

I'm ready, and happy, to have a discussion based on which definition should be used in establishing the state institution. But to call my definition factually wrong, or even just a belief, is in itself a factual error.