Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EternalVigilance
"...citing a truckload of precedent."

I just love that particular line.

Aside from that, I just think that the basic definitions of terms are an aspect of this that the courts are choosing to ignore in this entire argument.

"MARRIAGE" - the union of a man and woman. Anything else (as the dictionary is even wrestling with) may be considered "similar" in some respects, but it's still different.

Apples and oranges are both example of fruit, but apples are not oranges.

I could argue this all day on Biblical grounds, but since the courts won't, I'm going for word definitions... which is what law is usually all about.

15 posted on 03/04/2015 8:11:21 AM PST by alancarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: alancarp

Every single term associated with marriage requires the union to be between a man and a woman.

Nuptials.

Couple.

Matrimony.

Union.

Wedding.

Connubial.

Betroth.

Bridal.

Monogamy.

And the list goes on and on.

If you study the etymology of each word, the union between a man and a woman is required.


20 posted on 03/04/2015 8:28:37 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson