"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > I don't think the people who wrote the laws regarding marriage intended
> > to cover same sex unions, and I don't like the idea that we can just
> > arbitrarily expand the legal meaning because some people like the idea.
> > If I can't count on the consistent meaning of words in a legal sense,
> > how can I trust the laws the words describe?
>
> OH! I understand your objection now.
Apparently you do not, otherwise you'd quit creating dubious comaprisons
and trying to paint me as anti-gay.
> So, what are the new words for "Speeding"? There'd be one from 1987 and
> one from 1995. Prior to 1987, "Speeding" meant going faster than 55 mph.
> Between 1987 and 1995, there'd have to be some new word, since the
> national speed limit was raised to 65 mph, so obviously the old word --
> "speeding" -- wouldn't apply. And then in '95, the national speed limit
> was abolished, so whatever word was used to mean "exceeding 65 mph"
> between 1987 and 1995 would have been rendered useless, so you'd need
> another new word. You can't just change the law so the word means
> something else, after all, right?
What sort of argument is this? It is almost totally incoherent. Speeding
as most reasonable people understand the word means exceeding the posted
speed limit. Changing the posted speed limit is not redefining the
meaning of the word speeding.
> And what about "obscenity"?! Heck, under your philosophy that word
> would've been rendered obsolete and required replacement practically every
> week since 1620!
This is also total BS. Obscenity is based on the opinion of the
observer. It always has been. The meaning of the word as not changed,
although what people perceive to be obscene most certainly has. I am
personally opposed to most laws that try to outlaw obscenity precisely
because it is such a slippery word.
> Let's see, some other examples? Sure, how about "DOT legal headlamp
> system"? Prior to 1957, it meant two 7" round sealed beam units under
> NHTSA, indivisible, with tungsten and glass for all, to the exclusion of
> all others. From '57 to '73 it meant two 7" round sealed beam units *or*
> four 5.75" round ones, to the exclusion of all others. From '73-'75 it
> meant two 7" rounds, *or* four 5.75" rounds, *or* two 200mm x 142mm
> rectangulars, to the exclusion of all others. From '75-'83 it meant two 7"
> rounds *or* four 5.75" rounds *or* two 200mm x 142mm rectangulars *or*
> four 165mm x 100mm rectangulars, to the exclusion of all others. From
> '83-'86 it meant...you get the point.
More incoherent and unrelated babbling. A DOT legal headlight system
means what it always has a system that DOT says is legal. There is no
long term historical concept that this term embodies.
> In each of these examples, and many others besides, the scope and
> definition of what is covered by a legal term have changed, expanded
> and/or contracted simply by dint of a change, deletion or reinterpretation
> of an existing law and/or the introduction of a new one.
Your examples were ridiculous, so your conclusions are also ridiculous.
> Humanity is considerably more adaptible than you give us credit for, as it
> seems, for in every such case we've managed to get along just fine.
> Nobody's been confused about what "speeding" means, nobody's been confused
> about what is or isn't a "DOT legal headlamp". So, the assertion that
> Bad Things<tm> will happen if gays are allowed to get Married<tm> because
> it will render the term legally confusing, contains no merit upon which to
> stand.
I am disturbed that you feel it is important to redefine the meaning of
a long established institution.
> The only logical conclusion, therefore, is that this objection to the
> application of the word "marriage" to same-sex unions is a false front for
> something else. What else? Well, it could be a dislike of homosexuals, a
> plain case of snobbery, religious fervor, "I got mine, Jack, so ****
> you"...or a combination of the above.
This is not a logical conclusion. In fact it is totally irrational. Why
is it that some people always descend into name calling when they stop
making coherent arguments. I simply don't agree with the idea that
commitments between same sex couples are the same as traditional
marriages. There is no hidden agenda, no dislike for homosexuals, and I
am not even particularly religious.
> > What do you mean by "repeating a dogmatic statement?"
>
> "Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is between a man and a
> woman. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is between a man
> and a woman."
In my opinion this is exactly the meaning of the word "marriage" in a
legal context. If that is "dogma" then I am guilty.
> > I just wants legal terms to have a consistent understandable meaning.
>
> Then you're sorta ****ed, see above. Legal terms' meanings shift and drift
> all day, every day. Can't keep up? That makes one of you. The rest of us
> are doing just fine.
Other people in this forum constantly grumble about shifting meanings of
legal terms (like militia, or maintenance, or...). In each and every
case I come down on the side of maintaining the meaning of the term as
understood by the body that originally enacted the law. Shifting the
meaning on a whim is, in my opinion, a bad idea.
> > I don't like the idea of laws being molded into a new shape by adjusting
> > the meaning of words.
>
> You'd prefer pointing and grunting? Or perhaps some mathematics-based
> system, or a legal system based on musical notes or tints and hues?
No, I'd prefer legislatures enacting / revising laws as necessary to
implement the enlightened wishes of the majority of society instead of
having courts adjust the laws by distorting the long established meaning
of a word (or words).
> > > Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> > > of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> > > union between members of the same race."
> >
> > I think you missed the mark here. At the time and places these sort of
> > believes were held, separate laws were passed prohibiting such unions.
>
> ...exactly as the Defense of Marriage act has been passed prohibiting such
> unions, yes. That's one very strong parallel.
>
> > The definition of "marriage" was not adjusted to exclude such unions.
>
> That is exactly what anti-miscegenation laws did.
>
> > The "right way" is to pass laws recognizing civil unions and endowing
> > them with the rights and benefits that lawmakers agree on.
>
> Bzzt. The "right way" is for all married Americans to have the same
> responsibilities and rights, period. Not for one specific group to have
> whatever table scraps lawmakers "agree on" throwing them.
What kind of argument is this? You accuse me of repeating a dogmatic
statement - but aren't you doing the same thing by continually implying
that same sex unions are the same as a traditional man / woman marriage?
It is a fact of life that we all have to make do with the "table scraps
lawmakers 'agree on' throwing" us.
> > I suppose you could pass laws explicitly redefining the legal meaning of
> > the word "marriage" to include same sex union, but this seems needlessly
> > provocative.
>
> The majority frequently feels provoked, put upon, abused or otherwise
> wronged when their exclusive privileges are extended to others not like
> them. A nominally democratic and free society is a provocative place.
Exactly what are the great benefits of a traditional marriage that are
so important to same sex couples? What can't they achieve by other legal
means that don't require insulting millions of people who deeply believe
that a marriage is a man / woman union? Why are you opposed to granting
the same rights to same sex couple as people in a traditional marriage
without changing a long standing definition to suit your wishes?
> > Of course maybe that is the whole objective of those who want to change
> > the legal definition of marriage to include same sex unions.
>
> <eyeroll> Yeah, that's it. They're doing it *expressly because they know
> it ****es you off*. They're fighting expensive legal battles *just to get
> your goat*.
It certainly seems that they are fighting the battle to **** off
someone. I can't see any logical reason for trying to redefine the legal
meaning of marriage when there are other ways of achieving the same
benefits.
> > I have no desire to discriminate again people of the same sex who love
> > each other
>
> This claim, in light of your other assertions in this and other posts, is
> not believable. It's apparent you *do* wish to engage in exactly this sort
> of discrimination -- you just won't admit it, apparently. Don't feel
> lonely, Ed, this has been going on for a very long time. Those who argued
> vehemently in favor of keeping anti-miscegenation laws considered
> themselves enlightened and unprejudiced. After all, they didn't seek to
> *enslave* blacks, as their horrid, ignorant, cruel and hateful forebears
> had done. No. They just sought to maintain God's natural law by
> prohibiting the mixing of the races, that's all. Just as folks like you
> swear you're not predjudiced or hateful. Not like your horrid, ignorant,
> cruel and hateful forebears who rounded up gays and threw them in
> institutions, "treated" them with electroshock, or simply stoned them to
> death. No. You just seek to maintain God's natural law, etc. etc. etc.
I am tired of you deciding what I believe. Get it through your head, I
don't like the idea of changing laws my judicial fiat. The same process
used to modify the legal meaning of "marriage" today to suit your
wishes, may be used to your detriment tomorrow.
Ed
[email protected]...
