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

Skip to comments.

Can A Supreme Court Re-define Words?
self-vanity | 7/26/03 | Eastbound

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?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 116; congress; constitution; disenfranchisement; opinions; orwell; ruleoflaw; supremecourt; usurpation; wakeupcall
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
Again, this is not about homosexual 'marriages' and would appreciate any on-point replies. Thank you.

I have to leave for a few hours and will be back early this evening.

1 posted on 07/26/2003 10:08:41 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'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.'

2 posted on 07/26/2003 10:11:11 AM PDT by dark_lord (The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
The dictionary follows a pattern of "original" definition and subsequent expansions and/or categories. No one can take away a definition except by making it obsolete. So the primary definition would remain and a secondary meaning would be added. So the option is a second meaning or a new "class", i.e., civil marriage.
3 posted on 07/26/2003 10:19:57 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
Gee, there's been such a dearth of commentary on this topic since the USSC decision a month ago. Good thing we've got people who will post vanities on the subject.
4 posted on 07/26/2003 10:27:05 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
Who the H*LL messed up the meaning of the word "gay"? And I'm glad I didn't own any stock in the diet candy company called "Ayds". They should just stick to the legal definitions and quit messing our language. After all "is" has but one definition!
5 posted on 07/26/2003 10:29:01 AM PDT by vger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound; scripter; EdReform; ArGee
does a supreme court have the right or authority to re-define any noun

I think it's a case for the legislature not the courts.

6 posted on 07/26/2003 10:29:55 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Good thing we've got people who will post vanities on the subject.

Did somebody fart?

7 posted on 07/26/2003 10:30:52 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Did somebody fart?

Maybe, it sure does stink since you entered the thread.

8 posted on 07/26/2003 10:34:48 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Brilliant td, brilliant!
9 posted on 07/26/2003 10:36:31 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
The courts do not have the right to redefine what the law says...but they will and no one will stop them.

It is all about power. Liberals are willing to do whatever it takes, democracy be damned, to get what they want and conservatives play by the rules.

So we now have a Constitution with all the power ultimately vested in the Judicial branch. With no 2nd or 10th Amendments, but new 'rights' to sodomy and abortion...and soon yes indeed gay marriage.
10 posted on 07/26/2003 10:37:10 AM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
So the option is a second meaning or a new "class", i.e., civil marriage.

Are you indicating that some marriages are "civil" and some are not?

Why not the obvious... "gay marriage"???

11 posted on 07/26/2003 10:40:58 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
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?

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."

12 posted on 07/26/2003 10:43:07 AM PDT by Jeff Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
ROTFLOL - Brilliant retort!
13 posted on 07/26/2003 10:44:49 AM PDT by Jeff Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
Can A Supreme Court Re-define Words?

Yes.

14 posted on 07/26/2003 10:47:33 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
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.

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.

15 posted on 07/26/2003 10:50:09 AM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Principled
It's not up to me...just tossing options around.
16 posted on 07/26/2003 10:50:28 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
I think it's the position of the red/green lights that is the primary cue to color blind folks not the color.
17 posted on 07/26/2003 10:54:31 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
In questions of the allocation of power, in determination of what is true and real, in determining what has or has not been agreed to, in a particular document, etc., it is the reality that must govern, not some word game. American political societies are based upon the theory of a social compact, a system that has been agreed upon and accepted by those who are bound by it.

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

18 posted on 07/26/2003 10:54:58 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
options are a plus, but the option you put forth (civil) seemed contrary to common sense imo....
19 posted on 07/26/2003 10:58:26 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Principled
As it stands right now, the majority refer to them as civil unions. Geez, what's your problem.
20 posted on 07/26/2003 11:01:57 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

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.

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