Ensure the definition
In reference to my post about what exactly President Bush was delivering on gay marriage, I have one further comment. After doing some research on the web, it appears that pro-gay marriage amendment advocates say that a Constitutional amendment is necessary so that advocate judges don't "redefine" marriage. I'm not going to take on the idea of advocate judges, but let me discuss this idea of if a judge could redefine marriage. I don't think s/he could. At best they could require that states and the federal government give benefits of same-sex couples, but that isn't in conflict with the proposed amendment anyway.Here is how a judge cannot change the definition of marriage. We, as a society, already have a clear understanding of what marriage is. That is why we use the modifier--gay in front of marriage. To CLEARLY delineate the difference. Once a same-sex couple have "gotten" married, society uses the gender neutral, partner, to describe them. It sounds silly to refer to a homosexual couple as husband and husband or wife and wife. Even if gay marriage becomes legalized and common, our lexicon will still delinate between same-sex and heterosexaul marriage. Don't believe me...what do we call a marriage between a white man and a black woman? They have an interracial marriage, 135 years after the blacks and whites became equal in the eyes of the law.
posted by Anonymous @ 10:41 AM
