Response to the "Corrective" Responses on Honeymoon Phase

A couple of "corrective" responses to my response to a writer's use of the phrase, "honeymoon phase" have got me to respond yet again to what some might think is splitting hairs. But the fact is that words have meaning and I do think that the use of 'honeymoon phase' in the context of writing about a wedding  currently happening seems chronologically incongruous. A honeymoon comes up after the wedding, not before. And to suggest an inverse time frame to it seems a way to normalize intimate relations before the wedding. If the phrase was not meant to condition us to the new morality, why not simply use the word "affectionate"? Because of course the writer wished to convey that they were still in a honeymoon phase. If he only means they are still in love, why wouldn't they be? I mean they are getting married aren't they? I would put forth that he used the phrase to acclaim the fact that they haven't gotten tired of each other yet. It is no accident he used a term which is meant to come after and not before for a reason, and that reason was to normalize what most of us unfortunately see as the new normal...that intimacy isn't saved for the honeymoon, but comes even before the wedding.