Posted on 07/26/2003 10:08:40 AM PDT by Eastbound
In a recent discussion on a 'right to marry' thread, a new poster made the statement that the Mass. supreme court was in the process of 're-defining' the word, 'marriage'' to include homosexual unions. Throughout the history of the human race, the word, 'marriage,' always referred to the union of a man and a woman. In fact, the legal dictionary specifically defines 'marriage' as pertaining to a man and a woman.
The question I would like to address is not whether homosexuals do or do not have the 'right' to marry, but more importanty, does a supreme court have the right or authority to re-define any noun that has been previously defined (both legally and socially) as a very specific and un-ambiguous thing.
For example, can the supreme court legally re-define the color, 'red,' to include some shades of yellow or orange which have heretofore been defined as a wave lengths existing between specific high and low frequency limits?
For example: Suppose I wanted my den painted any shade of blue and the contractor painted it red. I sue and lose because the court said red was a shade of blue, re-defining the color frequency limits to include red to the previously-defined blue spectrum. In essence, the court re-defined what constituted the color, blue.
If the supreme court can add to the definition of a word, then we have to assume that it has the authority to subtract from the definition of a word. Think of the possibilities when it comes to the Second Amendment.
I see no difference between the court changing the definition of the word 'marriage' and the word, 'blue.' If the court is allowed to follow through on this, I am pursuaded that the 'rule of law' as we know and practice it will be destroyed. Am I wrong?
I simply asserted my opinion that I think "civil" is not a good choice, as it connotes differing degrees of civility between gay and heterosexual marriages.
I offered a choice of my own, "gay marriages".
That's all, no problem here.
If the light was pure Red, the RG color blind person could not tell if the light was on or off. Believe me, I know. I have encountered pure Red and Green lights in other parts of the world. I either have to not drive or have a pair of good eyes in the car.
You can learn the meanings of french words from a French-English Dictionary, but you had to learn your native tongue (e.g., English) by tradition.
And twisting the traditional meanings of words is SOP for those who would make "some animals more equal than others."
Response: I think what they are doing is a form of Nominalism.
Well, "infringed" in the Second Amendment answers the question about verbs --- so it follows that nouns may also be re-defined.
Love those 'slithy toves.' Thanks for the reply. I suspect Alice eventually learned, as many of us have, that 'verbs' rule and are 'masters' of the court. Nouns just don't have a chance in front of a judge. ;-)
(As an aside, I suspect Clinton was getting ready to unload a legal bombshell so they let him slide rather than get in a public argument about the merits of fiction jurisdiction where verbs and adverbs reign, versus the 'now' jurisdiction where nouns are king. Clinton played his trump card and rattled the court when he let them know he knew what 'mirror' law was when he made his famous what is 'is' statement. They knew he was ready to blow the whistle if they didn't back off. And back off they did.)
But now the courts are starting to play word games again and it doesn't bode well for the rule of law if the court is allowed to re-define the words used in existing law. Their job is to define what the law is based on words used in the law which already have specific and non-ambiguous definitions -- not to re-define those words. This practice dis-enfranches We, the people, who have already agreed (through Congress) on word definitions when the laws are created using those words.
Are the courts going to be allowed to change the Constitution with a swipe of the pen based on bad opinions rather than allow the people to speak and create new laws or amend the constitution in a manner prescribed by law?
Who needs a constitution or a rule of law if a handful of appointees can sit as kings and arbitrarily legislate from the bench? Send Congress home. They aren't doing their job and are taking money under false pretenses.
You may be correct, but I'm not sure that even the senates can RE-define words that already have a definition. I think the Fourteenth Amendment establshed a precedent dis-allowing a re-defining of a word that was already defined in the U.S. Constitution.
I submit:
The word, 'Citizen,' (upper case 'C") in the constitution had a specific definition and Congress decided it didn't have the authority to change the definition of that word to include people that couldn't meet the qualifications demanded by that definition.
So it did the next best thing. It created another word, 'citizen,' (lower case) and an entirely new institution for those citizens, (federal citizenship) and bestowed upon this new group (or recognized) all the rights, privileges and protections heretofore enjoyed by 'Citizens.'
So rather than go through the Amendment process and create a new word that is similar to the word, 'marriage,' which is likewise legally defined, the Supreme Court in Mass. is in the process of re-defining the word to include a class or group of people that don't meet the qualifications demanded by the legal definition of that word..
Why didn't the supreme court of yesteryear do the same thing with the word, "Citizen," to include the freed slaves and other non-citizens whose rights were long over-due for recognition instead of going through the process of amending the Constitution?
I think it was because the supreme court knew it didn't have the right to change the definition of the word. If that be true (or even if was for a different legitimate reason), why does today's supreme court feel it has that right to subvert the amendment process?
Yes, I agree. And we will be damned and convicted by the same law we are trying to preserve. I smell smoke on the horizon.
Well, you have a point. I'll consider that. ;->
Thanks for the information on traffic lights. Wondered why I always got off late when the 'tree' lit up. :-)
Thanks, Rodney. Now let me ask, do you think it should have the authority to re-define words?
Obviously they can and do.
Well said, Ohioan. Worth repeating. Still looking for a remedy, but can't come up with one.
(Poe, yes. And another book, 'Animal Farm' comes to mind.)
And you can bet those specialized policies are bullet-proofed with the most un-ambiguous words in language construction.. But still, given the right incentive, the court will find a way around that, I suspect. Higher premiums, unintended consequences. Thanks for the information, Default User.
As in "Four legs good, two legs bad." Yup! Agreed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.