Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Defining Definitions Down...

Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution? - Groucho Marx

You know, I can remember a time when a rainbow was the symbol of God's promise to Noah that He would never again destroy the World due to Man's wickedness by means of a flood.

Now it seems to be a symbol that whoever owns this car/tee-shirt/lunchbox is a homosexual, and everyone else has to be notified.

I also can remember when you could say that someone was a "gay old fella" without alluding to the probability that he didn't really understand basic biology.

But over the last couple of decades, we have re-defined the word "gay", capitalized it, made a noun out of it, and created a whole new subject that everyone is now required to explain to their children, and usually way sooner than they would like to.

And then there's this...

Marriage: The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc...

Has now become: A relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction (for now): trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

But the people of California (of all places) voted to put the brakes on the redefinition of a word which has meant the same thing since the dawn of Human Society.

From the San Francisco Gate...

California voters legally outlawed same-sex marriage when they approved Proposition 8 in November, but the constitutional amendment did not dissolve the unions of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before the measure took effect, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

Prop. 8 undid that ruling by reinstating the definition of marriage that the court had struck down, this time as an amendment to the state Constitution. The author of last year's 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ronald George, said today that the voters were within their rights to do so...

In dissent, Justice Carlos Moreno, who joined the majority in last year's decision, said today's ruling accepted the separate-but-equal treatment for gays and lesbians that the 2008 ruling rejected.
"Granting same-sex couples all of the rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, except the right to call their officially recognized and protected family relationship a marriage, still denies them equal treatment," Moreno said.

Actually, it doesn't, because, unless I've missed something here, a gay man has exactly the same right to marry any woman he wants as a straight man does.

If the gay person chooses not to marry someone of the opposite sex, and instead chooses an alternate lifestyle with alternate rules and alternate benefits and alternate challenges, then that is their choice.

In California, anyway.

For better or for worse, the people of California have spoken. The losers - I mean, the minority opinion raised their challenge, and the Court, for once, declined this particular opportunity to play an activist role, and instead just did their job, which was, to determine whether or not the people had made their statement through proper and legal channels.

Which they did.

So, for now, the word "Marriage" still means what it has always meant.

Just like the words "Democracy", and "Freedom".

At least where this issue is concerned.

At least in California.


Daffy76 said...

Just take an idea and run with it, why don't you?

Marriage is just a word to quite a lot of people these days, the gay issue aside. As are the other two words you mention. Although, some would argue that freedom is the issue at stake here.

It doesn't really matter one way or the other to me. I view marriage as a sacred institution and not a legal contract. Call it what you want. What Lewis and I have is above societal definition. It is far more than what most people think of as "marriage."

ChefNele said...

Well, I really chuckled reading that post....and from my seat, marraige is a whole new business I just CANT WAIT to get into. I want to get married more than I want to breathe. I want to get married more than I have ever wanted anything in my whole freaking life.

But, I can say this for sure, no matter HOW HARD UP and DESPERATE I get in the marraige department, I am certain I will never pursue a marriage of the homosexual variety.

And speaking of the homosexual variety, it really Grinds My Gears that working for the company I work for, means this: homosexuals who have "domestic life partners" are eligible to put their girlfriends or boyfriends on THEIR health insurance plans and life insurance plans and dental insurance plans.....but I AM NOT ALLOWED to do so because my boyfriend and I have not yet gotten married. so, if BR were my husband he could be on my health insurance plan. Or, if I were a homosexual, and had a girlfriend SHE could then be on my health insurance plan......even though homosexual marraiges are still illegal in the state of florida...a homosexual couple is welcome to share health benefits, but heterosexual couples are not. Which I find not only descriminatory, but personally insulting. Its as if the company is implying that those relationships are SO much more stable (or whatever) than MINE is, because they are homosexuals and I am not.

I want to sue somebody for descrimination, but I'm not sure where to start.

Certainly if they can extend those benefits to umarried homosexual couples, they could extend them to every one else as well.....
I mean whats so hard about that??