As far as the government is concerned,(at least, when you strip away all the nonsense, it should be thus) the word "marriage" is a term that defines a specific legal contract. That contract, at it's most basic level, says:"The two parties to the contract agree that, if the resources of their bodies are to be used to produce children, they will be used in that manner only with the other party to the contract."
It has the three required elements necessary to make a contract; an offer, an acceptance and a consideration.(The consideration being that they give up the right to produce children with the resources of their bodies with any person aside from the other party to the contract.)
This contract neither requires the production of children, nor does it prohibit adoption. A same sex couple must go outside of that contract to produce offspring, therefore they may not make that contract - and, indeed, I should think that any court would void such a contract between same sex couples because it would deny them their self-evident and unalienable right to procreate. (This is not a problem for couples who are infertile or damaged in some way that would ordinarily preclude the production of offspring because, between a man and a woman it is always theoretically possible for them to produce a child.)
I am shocked that the members of the highest court in America decided to exercise WILL rather than JUDGEMENT(in the sense outlined in Federalist paper #78) in a matter so basic to the health and well being of society. They did the same thing a few days before this ruling, when they exercised WILL rather than JUDGEMENT to rule by the corruption of the dictionary, in the health care subsidies case.
You (the individual to whom this was a reply said this)say that no individual has a "right" to the definition of a word - but societies, and particularly societies governed by the rule of law, do. A word in the law, MUST mean what it meant when it was first written, else the law becomes of none effect. A mere thing of clay in the hands of the judiciary. And, if you want to live in a society where the definition of words in the law is constantly changing to suit the whims of those in power, I suggest you move someplace where the rule of law is not respected. A communist nation perhaps.
May the definition of a word be changed from time to time? Yes, but only with the gravest consideration and proper notice that from this time forward this word now means something other than what it has meant heretofore and even then, if one has a proper respect for history, there must be a new term created to describe what that term meant before it was changed, and all the laws containing the original term must be changed to the new term. Indeed, the whole process would be so cumbersome that I cannot imagine - especially with a term that has had such usage since the very foundation of this nation, a term such as "marriage" - that anyone would see it as the viable alternative to doing what should have been done in this case.
To wit: find a term that describes the contract same sex couples could make and let them go through the same legislative process that married people went through to get the same benefits. To do otherwise is to essentially destroy the rule of law by creating a precedent that says an individual or group may gain a legislative shortcut to their desired goals by having the courts legislate through redefinition as has happened here. And, since the courts are prohibited from creating law by the Constitution, whether through outright declaration or through jiggery-pokery, the SCOTUS ruling is not law and should result in every member of that court who voted for it to be removed from the bench for bad behavior.
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment