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?
YES.
In 1893, the United States Supreme Court ruled the tomato was a "vegetable" and therefore subject to import taxes. In fact, the tomato is a fruit.
Yes, but isn't that an antithetical and destructive approach by those who define the law -- those who demand non-ambiguity in legal procedures and quick to trashcan any document that doesn't have all the 't's' crossed and 'i's' dotted or having un-defined phrases?
Witness the recent NJ Supreme Court decision on the Senate election. There was no doubt what the law said. Same principle applied to the rulings by the Florida Supremes in 2000. There was no ambiguity, no need to redefine anything.
Maybe the new "buzzword" is "compelling interest" as in Sandra Day O'Connor's rejection of the plain language of the 14th Amendment because Michigan had a "compelling interest" in diversity.
In the NJ and FL cases, perhaps it was just a "compelling interest to elect Democrats.
I'm sure! :-)
Hopefully, a larger number of 'We the people' will begin realizing we have a more compelling interest in restoring the courts and the rule of law, if even that be possible at this late date.
Your tagline just reduced all my replies here to one sentence. Agree wholeheartedly. Thanks for your reply, Noachian.
That's exactly what the courts did when they re-defined "Cassia" as "Cinnamon" for the purpose of retail sales in the United States. In every other country in the world it is illegal to sell "Cassia" and call it "Cinnamon" but not in the US. In fact, you will find it extremely difficult to find real cinnamon for sale in the US.
It was a strange statement to make under the circumstances, and it was not just an idle quip which the general public thought. Thanks for the reply, reg45.
True, but the word redefinition angle is ultimately a shallow view of judicial abuse of power. Taking the marriage issue as an example, though I am keen to push back on those in the media who cavalierly use the word "marriage" to describe gay civil unions, to Constitutionalize an indifference to the institution of one man/one woman as the basis of families bears on Western culture's very survival.
No.
Because they can, ergo might makes right, quod erat demonstrandum.
It's pretty heady stuff to be a liberal supreme court justice, free to redesign the lives of your fellow citizens at whim--with no accountability whatsoever.
It was for correcting problems as egregious as the redefinition of fundamental structures of culture and politic, that Amendment II was written. I would not be surprised if major changes and significant conflict, possibly including taking up arms would be wrought by inflicting this abuse upon our nation. (Redefining marriage, to include homophiliac unions.)
I can just see the reds jumping up and down (50 years ago) saying "can we infer American includes communists?
What up U. TFTP (thanks for the ping)
What disturbs me is, many of my bretheren-under-arms and I worry that we will win the War On Terror, but lose the peace we purchase for the sheeple.
I'm glad FR exists. I need reminders there are people who feel, as I do, that there are forebodings on the horizon.
I fear for the Republic.
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.