|
Re: homosexual Marriage: Who Cares?
From: jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac.com (Jenn)
In article <55vg7614ceiuhc5bl4tpe0ver4rfjiuoa3@4ax.com>,
flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:44:19 -0700, Jenn
<jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac.com> wrote:
What in the decision isn't legally sound?
No decision that fails to understand the definition of words can be
sound, legally or otherwise.
You're kidding, right?
To wit, a court decision that applied 14'th amendment protections to
cats would be unsound because cats, regardless of how affectionately
we may view them, are simply not, by definition, persons. Similarly a
'same hug union', regardless of how affectionately we may view it, is
simply not, by definition, a "marriage."
(I picked cat and Pictures of People">person merely for the obviousness of it. No 'hidden
meaning' implied).
I'll note that the wording of Prop 8 suffers the same affliction.
But credit where credit's due, the proponents of, so called, " homosexual
marriage" have done an excellent job of framing the matter as fete
accompli with hardly a soul noticing.
Did Loving vs. Virginia "mangle the language"? Was it "PC gibberish"?
You tell me. Just what words do you imagine the court saw fit to
redefine against thousand year meaning or oxymoron to invent?
Loving changed the definition of marriage in the U.S.
That is simply not so. The meaning of marriage was not changed by
Loving v. Virginia nor was it changed by the "Racial Integrity Act of
1924" that had prohibited interracial "marriages," just as the
prohibition, or not, of possessing marijuana doesn't alter the
definition of possession or of marijuana.
In fact, you cannot prohibit, or make illegal, a thing, whatever that
thing might be, unless you know what the definition of the thing is.
The meaning of "marriage" has, on average, always been the union of
People Pictures">man and woman, including the well know ramifications of such, and, in
fact, it is precisely the well known ramifications of such a
relationship that motivated the "Racial Integrity" laws as well as all
the other, whether just or unjust, attendant laws; not to mention
culture, social morays, religious ceremony, and so on. These things
were not whole cloth inventions but, rather, evolved from conditions
and behavior, including the ramifications of such, well known long
before even recorded history. That is why the word exists: to describe
that well known condition and behavior, including the ramifications of
such.
The word has no meaning and purpose the way you wish to 'redefine' it.
Of course it does, your objections not withstanding. Loving "changed
the definition of marriage" exactly the same way that the Prop. 8
judge's ruling "changed the definition of marriage". Legally, the
restrictions were considered arbitrary, without harm, and were contrary
to equal protection under the law.
| Subject |
 | |
|
