Vanity: Random thoughts on July 3, 2015
What has happened to our society when a tiny minority of outspoken folks can mess with our language and redefine words at will? Furthermore, what will happen to the word of law?
1) First, there was the definition of “is”. Remember that? Depends upon what the meaning of is is. A convoluted excuse, if I ever heard one.
2) Even before that, there was the word “gay”, which (over a generation) morphed from a happy word with pleasant, cheerful connotations to one that means homosexual, with all the negatives associated. Gay used to be even used as a name for both girls and boys. (ref. the author Gay Talese and my female cousin who is about 50 yrs. old)
3) According to my Congressman this week, the word ”majority” actually means 10 votes over the majority, or it doesn’t count. He says that there is a little known “rule” in the Senate that allows only ONE VOTE PER YEAR to pass out of the Senate with only 51 votes. Where is that in the Constitution? So, a majority of 100 votes means 60 votes now – always.
4) SCOTUS is confused about the word “State”. According to them State now means “Federal”.
5) SCOTUS also did cartwheels defining the word “tax” in order to support Obama who doesn’t even know what “natural born citizen” means.
6) And now “marriage” no longer is a union/contract between man and woman – despite thousands of years of custom.
Anyone who says this doesn’t matter isn’t foreseeing the ramifications. How can the legislative body of the US (or anywhere) possibly write laws when any vociferous minority group can change the meaning of the words at will? No wonder my Congressman (an attorney) looks stressed.
End of rant.
Adding one more thing: The definition of “citizenship” regarding the right to vote. SCOTUS just denied that.
Goodbye USA.
I think Dave is right-get rid of the selling of marriage licenses-let them sell civil contracts if someone wants one-but quit calling it a marriage license. No government permission is needed for marriage, and government workers like judges, etc have no right to perform weddings-that is up to the church/synagogue/temple/mosque. I really think that is the only way around this abomination of a ruling. I certainly wouldn’t continue to attend my parish church if the priest there performed a homosexual wedding-I’d go find one where the priest only marries a man and a woman...