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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 9.
Also, if you were to pull Americans, I believe you may find a surprising number of people Also, if you were to pull Americans, I believe you may find a surprising number of people would already consider a same-sex union a marriage.
Also, as a sidenote, while this is not exactly a purely rational argument, more of a legal argument, we must consider the concept of "separate but equal." Also, as a sidenote, while this is not exactly a purely rational argument, more of a legal argument, we must consider the concept of "separate but equal." If something is kept separate is it truly equal to what it has been separated from? At some point does that create a second-class status? If that is how people view it on their own, then of course there can be no objection to it except on moral grounds. But if that is how the state defines it, then perhaps we have an issue.
Speaking of, the term "organic" has changed drastically over the past 10 to 20 years. We're before it was used to describe the design of furniture or decor as having smooth curves, or purely in chemistry as a chemical containing carbon, it now has a different meaning. There is very little confusion when one describes a particular variety of Greek yogurt as "organic" as to which one of the three definitions the speaker is referring.
Perhaps this is how many homonyms were developed. We do not lament that Fluke can mean:
A fish, and a flatworm.
The end parts of an anchor.
The fins on a whale's tail.
A stroke of luck.
And through the use of context people rarely think you're referring to a flatworm when you really meant a stroke of luck.
So why do we lament that marriage now means a union of two people, rather than simply of man and a woman? Over time words gradually become more inclusive of their meanings, as well, and this is a natural process. words that may have originally been very specific eventually refer to all entities within that group or category. "Band-Aid" now means bandage. "Kleenex" now means tissue. I do not hear the makers of these brand-name products complaining about such a development. While this is not exactly the same, I think you understand my point that language has never been static, and wishing it to be so not only will not make it so, but is a rejection of reality. Therefore, opposing this decision upon that sole basis is also a rejection of reality.
I have found in general that people are better at adapting to a changing language and you may think.
Please do
FTFY.
Frankly. many people believe asking people if they plan to have children is rude anyway.
The legislative rights law, the executive enforces it, and the judicial interprets it. While it may be the duty of every government employee to uphold the law, the Supreme Court's law is not those passed by legislatures, but the constitution.
In this case, allowing civil marriage licenses only to opposite sex couples violates the equal protection clause. What invented power is that?
If, for example, the majority wished to only allow marriage between two individuals of the same religion, as the Christian Bible commands ("Do not be unequally yoked"), would that be acceptable? No. The whims of the majority are not a justification for injustice. That is the true tyranny, not the desire of same-sex couples to remove it.
We do agree on the proper final solution. However I must object to your analysis of this decision. The government has not, and cannot, redefine language. Language, like words, is an expression of concepts and the government cannot forcibly change our minds or make us think differently.
What I believe you are failing to recognize is that the definition of marriage has already changed in the minds of the majority of people, and those who object to recognizing that officially seem to only have argument about tradition upon which to fall.
And again, I must stress that the reason the definition of marriage has changed in the minds of people is due to government intervention. We must correct that intervention. But our system of government only works in certain ways, and this is merely one step towards correcting the problem. three states have already begun the process of ending the issuance of marriage licenses. All three are southern Bible belt states that believe they are doing this in protest of the decision. This is the best possible outcome. Eventually I foresee even more challenges to limitations placed on state to sanction marriage, which will anger even more traditionalists, and spark similar forms of protest among other states.
This, to me, is The lifecycle of any government program. It is brought in with the best of intentions, bent on improving society at the expense of a minority, and eventually it's negative consequences become apparent. What happens after that depends entirely on how good the government is at explaining away those consequences. With marriage, it will likely no longer be a government program, like prohibition. With something like Social Security, we may need to see many more examples of the negative consequences before it too is left on the trash heap of history, if it doesn't drown us all first.
In summary, while this decision may not have been something I would have supported in a vacuum, In context it is the best possible outcome because it is unfortunately how our government works. Think of this as how many treat medicinal marijuana legislation. What will happen is that after all of the doomsday predictions prove to be nothing more than hot air, people will grow to except the concept of recreational use and eventually full legalization. I do not support medicinal marijuana because I believe it is a valuable medication that should be used in the arsenal of FDA approved prescriptions, nor is it because I believe only those who have cancer or glaucoma should be allowed to use marijuana. It is just one step towards ending a damaging government institution… Namely the war on drugs.
Read the constitution and you will have to redefine the language in order to extend the power of the SCROTUS to the degree they claim is theirs today.
But that is true of all three branches of government.
Many citizens of the countries that legalized gay marriage long before the U.S. expressed congratulations but also pointed out that this was a long time coming, particularly from a nation that the world views as a leader in human rights."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-ground...
The complaint is not whether the LGBT population deserves equal rights. The question is do they need "special rights" and was this actually about something other than what was stated by the LGBT sommunity.
I really don't have the time to play your game about marrying two people at once. That was NEVER my main point.
(Can you give me reason someone cant marry their dog etc?)
A civil union contract for everyone is a proper solution. Redefining the meaning of the word marriage is not, but that is what they have done, or what the result will be. That is my objection. In several cases this court seems hell bent on playing the Clinton game... "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Pure nonsense. Are we a nation of laws or of men? Marriage for thousands of years had a specific meaning. It was not necessary for the court to redefine the word when contract law and civil union contracts would guarantee equal rights.
Respectfully,
O.A.
The right thing to do is to prevent restrictions on freedom and let the rest sort itself out.
Jan
Load more comments...