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 wish I did. Prayers for others. Involvement instead of apathy. Discuss situations with family, friends and neighbors. Attend a function that you know Libs like to dominate. Stuff like social justice committees, preservation societies, peace groups, etc. Make them display their intolerence for you in public. We know they are hypocrites let them display such on local levels. Then record, publish and disseminate. The average American is smart enough to recognize deceit when he sees it IMO. Dialogue works well when you say what you mean and mean what you say. Two very hard things for someone with a duplicative nature I would imagine. It has been my experience that if you keep your composure in the midst of Liberals they will lose theirs. I would guess just staying involved and learning has got to help. And vote. And this is my plug for American Labor, (still the greatest workforce in the world - even though it has been infested with commies in various places), please buy Made in the USA.
Good one, WT.
"And yes, Mom, we were chaperoned by a 'married' couple, so there was nothing to worry about."
;->
Correct. But the courts can (and will) do just about anything they want if the legislatures avoid the responisbility. Legislative malpractice is the basis for the activist court decisions being made nowdays.
We R/G color blind people do have a big advantage in the woods, forrests and jungles. We can distinquish shapes and details that other people can not. R/G color blind people make good hunters.
An excellent article on the new math being used in the courts. Kudos to LocalT for posting it and Pan_Yans_Wife for the ping..
"Words could be destroyed, he said, by wantonly expanding their meanings so that they came completely to replace a whole range of older, more specific, and more definite terms and usages. This all sounds painfully familiar. One sees the term civilization being deliberately expanded in order to embrace some very uncivilized behavior indeed. "
BINGO!
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.