One of the most appalling things about the entire "gay marriage" issue has been the failure of the judiciary to recognize the fundamental meaning of the term "marriage" from a strictly logical standpoint. Marriage is a contract between two individuals regarding the production of children in which the parties to the contract mutually agree that any children they produce from the resources of their bodies will be produced with the other party to the contract. This contract does not require the production of children, nor does it prohibit adoption. Such a contract does, however, require that the parties to the contract be one male and one female because that is the only combination of individuals that can produce offspring between them.
No religious arguments are necessary. In fact, I am convinced that they are merely a red herring to distract and demean any who might oppose the efforts of the lgbt political power seeking machine..
Homosexual couples say they want the legislative benefits that come with marriage, but they do not want to go through the legislative process to get them. This undermines the rule of law
To redefine a legal term like marriage to provide a legislative shortcut for one group of people is nothing less than to undermine the rule of law itself. Words, particularly words as powerful as "marriage", must mean what they meant when they were written in the law. If they do not then no legislation is binding. It cannot be, because next week or next year key words may be subject to having their definitions changed to provide more legislative shortcuts.
Here is the 500 pound gorilla in the room that everyone sees but that no one wants to talk about: It is also necessary to legislate these benefits by redefinition because a sane society will not condone such an unhealthy lifestyle choice, nor should it. But the problem is that this method of handling the challenges of homosexual couples who are raising children has serious, long term consequences that should not be ignored or shoved under the rug to make people feel good about themselves. The destruction of the rule of law by undermining the integrity of the language is not something reasonable people should ignore.
This is reflective of a society which has rejected the existence of absolute moral values as their guiding principles. In other nations this might not be such a big deal, for the people in other nations are under the authority of their governments. For America, however, it is a disaster of epic proportions.
This government was DESIGNED for a moral and religious people. Not because the founders were religious fanatics(although I have no doubt that they would be counted as such in today's society) but because in order for a people to be the repository of governmental authority, the people must have a shared set of absolute values outside of the government in order to promote trust and consistency in the society itself.
It is shameful that the judiciary of this nation is so lacking in logic skills that they cannot work out this simple thing. I do not expect the same selfish people who value their own appearance of patriotism over the lives of our military to understand or sacrifice for the preservation of the most successful nation in the history of the world, but I do expect it from the judiciary.
"But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors."~James 2:9