They have it is called same sex marriage.
So, you're going to use adulterated dictionary entries to protest the adulteration of that exact same word?
In the 1970's they printed dictionaries on this stuff called paper, and the problem with paper dictionaries is that the words printed on the page can't be changed.
My dictionary says for marriage is:
1) the state of being married; relation between husband and wife, married life wedlock, matrimony.
2) the act of marrying; wedding
3) the rite or form used in marrying
4) any close or intimate union.
5) in pinochle, the king and queen of one suit.
(Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, 1976)
I'll note that four does not make any mention of the sex of either party, and that number five specifically requires a queen.
You're using a source that peculiarly specifies the distinction of the sexes. When was that work published? Also, why did you neglect to incude the third usage of the word in your own reference?
": an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>", which, btw, still has a deliberately misleadng example.
Furthermore, explain why the freedom of individuals should be held hostage to your desire to maintain your version of a particular dictionary entry.