This "civil partnership is the same so why give them a word?" is interesting. In The USA a couple of hundred years ago, blacks jumped over the broomstick. It was recognised in the same way a church wedding was for whites.

Instead of saying what is good enough for "them" just remember there is no "them." Just us. Adults in love and wishing to make a commitment that is recognised in law in terms of sharing assets and recognised by those in the marriage as a wonderful day with what is hoped at the time as a lifetime afterwards. We call it marriage by the way.

Dictionaries eh? Read Dr Johnson's? Bang on about the Scots and animals.....

Dictionaries are descriptors in an arbitrary manner, they are not definitive in law and they certainly do not take precedence over peoples' own experience. If someone calls their contract a marriage and that is recognised in law, it is incumbent upon the dictionary to catch up, not the other way around. The one quoted above has a totally superfluous second section that needs editing out. It possibly says more about the compiling editors than it does reality.