Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 10 months ago to Government
Well there you have it folks. Another decision that has the effect of complicating and distorting our language.
I personally have no problems with what the LGBT people do. It is only a matter of definitions and giving new meaning to existing words that bothers me. I believe that a new word should have been created and that equal rights in every way should be granted. Unfortunately now the word marriage will be less descriptive and specific. This has been the case of several decisions lately that only confound our language. The court believes it can re-write Webster's dictionary.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Addendum: Some final thoughts
After contemplating the arguments presented, I wish it understood that since I have no strong religious convictions on this matter, I have no personal problems with this ruling other than a minor irritation with the effective changing of the definition of the word marriage. I will have little difficulty adjusting my language and accepting the outcome. However, others of a contrary nature and the undoubted turmoil that will ensue for our nation will not likely foster comity. After all there are a very large number of people of religious convictions that will not wish to have their rights to practice and live by their beliefs abrogated.
I accept the absolute right of free association that is involved, but free association as a right cannot exist without its corollary of disassociation. One cannot objectively avoid recognition that this ruling will lead to the violation of rights of those that hold a contrary view by forcing them into associations they would otherwise avoid.
The problem’s origin seems to stem from the fact that the government has bestowed upon holders of a “marriage” license, benefits that others were not granted. This is unequal treatment and thus unjust. This is the crux of the problem and should be rectified and could be done easily by eliminating those benefits or granting them to everyone regardless of possession of such a license. It would seem that it is largely the result of government getting into something it should not have in the first place and as usual producing unanticipated consequences.
Is acquisition of this license in and of itself a fundamental right? If this were so, would it not apply to a driver’s license also? It has been understood that such a license is a privilege, which by definition one must qualify for. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, would not this line of reasoning lead one to conclude that any license or even contract that someone else can acquire is equally a right for all regardless of criteria? For instance should one demand that since some have contracts with the NBA that it should be the right of all so desiring? This is of course reductio ad absurdum.
What precedent for our nation and the effects upon states rights and the tenth amendment will this have? The implications are incalculable. The more cases that redefine the meaning of words, the more cases of the past will be in jeopardy. Without unchanging meanings we become a nation not of written laws, but of the whims of men and the political winds of the time. The fact that some words already have ambiguity is not a persuasive argument for acceptance of more of the same done with purpose born of temporary convenience or political correctness.
Some say (as the majority opinion did) that this is necessary to grant dignity and respect for the pro gay marriage crowd. This argument is specious since no government issued paper can grant dignity. Dignity is a reflection/matter of approval and acceptance of one's peers and the community.
Ultimately our nation will likely suffer further division and struggle with this issue just as we still do with Roe v. Wade. This is unfortunate since there were other alternatives. I hope it is not more than our ever more fragile peace between factions can handle. Frankly I hope I am wrong in this matter and we can move past it, but it does seem inevitable that our courts will be needlessly filled with cases where some “rights” are pitted against others. The mark of a legitimate fundamental right is that it does not conflict with others.
In closing, I would like to thank all those that have participated in this conversation and invite the reader to comment further as they desire.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I personally have no problems with what the LGBT people do. It is only a matter of definitions and giving new meaning to existing words that bothers me. I believe that a new word should have been created and that equal rights in every way should be granted. Unfortunately now the word marriage will be less descriptive and specific. This has been the case of several decisions lately that only confound our language. The court believes it can re-write Webster's dictionary.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Addendum: Some final thoughts
After contemplating the arguments presented, I wish it understood that since I have no strong religious convictions on this matter, I have no personal problems with this ruling other than a minor irritation with the effective changing of the definition of the word marriage. I will have little difficulty adjusting my language and accepting the outcome. However, others of a contrary nature and the undoubted turmoil that will ensue for our nation will not likely foster comity. After all there are a very large number of people of religious convictions that will not wish to have their rights to practice and live by their beliefs abrogated.
I accept the absolute right of free association that is involved, but free association as a right cannot exist without its corollary of disassociation. One cannot objectively avoid recognition that this ruling will lead to the violation of rights of those that hold a contrary view by forcing them into associations they would otherwise avoid.
The problem’s origin seems to stem from the fact that the government has bestowed upon holders of a “marriage” license, benefits that others were not granted. This is unequal treatment and thus unjust. This is the crux of the problem and should be rectified and could be done easily by eliminating those benefits or granting them to everyone regardless of possession of such a license. It would seem that it is largely the result of government getting into something it should not have in the first place and as usual producing unanticipated consequences.
Is acquisition of this license in and of itself a fundamental right? If this were so, would it not apply to a driver’s license also? It has been understood that such a license is a privilege, which by definition one must qualify for. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, would not this line of reasoning lead one to conclude that any license or even contract that someone else can acquire is equally a right for all regardless of criteria? For instance should one demand that since some have contracts with the NBA that it should be the right of all so desiring? This is of course reductio ad absurdum.
What precedent for our nation and the effects upon states rights and the tenth amendment will this have? The implications are incalculable. The more cases that redefine the meaning of words, the more cases of the past will be in jeopardy. Without unchanging meanings we become a nation not of written laws, but of the whims of men and the political winds of the time. The fact that some words already have ambiguity is not a persuasive argument for acceptance of more of the same done with purpose born of temporary convenience or political correctness.
Some say (as the majority opinion did) that this is necessary to grant dignity and respect for the pro gay marriage crowd. This argument is specious since no government issued paper can grant dignity. Dignity is a reflection/matter of approval and acceptance of one's peers and the community.
Ultimately our nation will likely suffer further division and struggle with this issue just as we still do with Roe v. Wade. This is unfortunate since there were other alternatives. I hope it is not more than our ever more fragile peace between factions can handle. Frankly I hope I am wrong in this matter and we can move past it, but it does seem inevitable that our courts will be needlessly filled with cases where some “rights” are pitted against others. The mark of a legitimate fundamental right is that it does not conflict with others.
In closing, I would like to thank all those that have participated in this conversation and invite the reader to comment further as they desire.
Respectfully,
O.A.
