Marriage can't be changed because in your mind a definition in a legal dictionary is unchangeable? Please contact both sides' legal counsels IMMEDIATELY so we can put an end to this issue now. ROFL!
Now let me update you on what's been happening in the REAL world...
Hawaii amended their constitution to prevent same-sex marriage from becoming a reality. They apparently hadn't heard of your legal dictionary argument. ;-)
The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996. This allows states the choice of whether or not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Thirty-seven state DOMAs have also been passed. Sounds like the Feds and 37 states also haven't heard about your legal dictionary theory. ;-)
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is expected to rule soon on whether or not same-sex couples have the right to marry. They're expected to disagree with your legal dictionary and actually redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. ;-)
The Federal Marriage Amendment has been proposed to amend the constitution to effectively ban same-sex marriages. Those pesky legislators in D.C. apparently haven't heard about your legal dictionary argument either. ;-)
Where do you draw the line? If the definition can be altered to include same sex unions, why not use the word, 'marriage' to define a union between a human and a goat -- or even a human and a whale? Do you see how wide the doorway is going to get once the gate is torn off its hinges?
Absolutely not! Your slippery slope argument fails the simplest of tests. Animals don't have the capacity to enter into a contract. And don't worry, Bill won't be marrying his Buick anytime soon, either. :)
Yes, labels are needed, and there should be no ambiguity -- and 'civil rights' cannot overturn centuries of legal definitions. Why would a lemon want to call itself a peach?
Please explain how you're going to get around the "Separate But Equal" issue with the Plessy v. Ferguson precedent I mentioned earlier!
Here's what could happen. If a state allows same-sex marriage, DOMA will be challenged as unconstitutional because of the Full Faith and Credit clause. Even many SSM opponents concede this is likely. That's one reason the Federal Marriage Amendment is being pushed.
You need to sharpen your argument on this issue. I suggest you start by thinking in terms of a narrowly-defined compelling state interest which justifies withholding the fundamental right of marriage from same-sex couples.
Think on this a while and feel free to get back with me after you have an answer that will withstand judicial scrutiny.
An idea whose time has come. Pass the word, if even in jest. Thanks.
Separation of church and state...
Human reproductive biology. Secular, simple, scientific.
Birth certificate = marriage certificate.
Monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in law.
I want to take the false "church-state separation" and cram it right back down their throats and use Roe v. Wade to do it...
See my post #39 or click on my name to see my FR homepage.
Legislating from the Bench again, huh? So what next? "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed -- except on Friday and Saturday.' -- (Supreme Court's 'right' to re-define the law.)
Legalisms aside, want to venture an opinion why lemons want to wear peach fuzz? I think that deep down, they actually reject their own lemon-ness or fear the challenge of creating and meriting their own 'honorable institution.' Easier to be a 'poseur' and bask in another's merit, I suppose. Good thing the lemon's aren't pushing to wear the insignia of the Navy Seals. ;-)