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 have to leave for a few hours and will be back early this evening.
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
I think it's a case for the legislature not the courts.
Did somebody fart?
Maybe, it sure does stink since you entered the thread.
Are you indicating that some marriages are "civil" and some are not?
Why not the obvious... "gay marriage"???
The Supreme Court does not need to get into re-defining colors. Our government has already done so.
Take at look a traffic signals. Is the Red light really red? Is the green light really green? No, they are not. About 20% of all males are Red/Green color blind. If the traffic signals were pure Red and Green, these color blind people could not see them. The actual color of the Red and Green signals have been adjusted (re-defined) so the color blind people can see them.
So yes, the SCOTUS and other government agencies and representitives can re-define words. Look at what Billy Boy did for the definition of "sex."
Yes.
Actually, the color issue is somewhat interesting because colors are not always well-defined. It is quite possible to have an object which will appear reddish when illuminated by one apparently-white light source and yet appear bluish when illuminated by another. As a general convention, colors of objects are described as they would appear if illuminated by daylight; this is usually good, though certain types of indoor lighting may cause such objects to appear the "wrong" color.
Example #1 (highly-contrived I'll admit): suppose a wall is painted a very dark shade of blue, but then painted with a transparent fluorescent dye that glows red. Under daylight, there may be enough UV to produce a reddish appearance; under artificial light, the blue would dominate.
Example #2 (also contrived): The wall is built of a material which is slightly reflective of a wide range of 'reddish' wavelengths but is extremely reflective of one particular bluish wavelength which is generated by fluorescent tubes. Only a small fraction of daylight would fall in the narrow blue wavelength, but a significant portion of the light from a fluorescent would fall there.
Example #3 (testable experimentally): Most white LED's produce a collection of wavelengths which taken together appear white, but are nowhere near a full spectrum. Although white LED flashlights can provide usable color discernment, objects illuminated by white LED's often appear quite different in color from those same objects illuminated in daylight. It's not at all uncommon for two objects which look about the same in daylight to look very different when illuminated via white LED.
At the Federal level, this is defined in our written Constitution. Each State also has a written Constitution: What has been agreed to by the people of that State. To seek to alter it, by putting interpretations on words that were not intended, is an act of usurpation, pure and simple. That Courts in the past century have repeatedly played such games, is one of the sorriest commentaries on the nearly dead public morality in contemporary America.
For an amusing comment by Edgar Allan Poe, on the Utilitarians use of such word games, see Poe On British Utilitarians.
William Flax
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.