lticast-range-not-delegated.example.com> 4e430847   
   XPost: rec.audio.opinion, alt.religion.scientology   
   From: jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac.com   
      
   In article <55vg7614ceiuhc5bl4tpe0ver4rfjiuoa3@4ax.com>,   
    flipper  wrote:   
      
   > On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:44:19 -0700, Jenn   
   >  wrote:   
      
   > >What in the decision isn't legally sound?   
   >   
   > No decision that fails to understand the definition of words can be   
   > sound, legally or otherwise.   
      
   You're kidding, right?   
      
   >   
   > To wit, a court decision that applied 14'th amendment protections to   
   > cats would be unsound because cats, regardless of how affectionately   
   > we may view them, are simply not, by definition, persons. Similarly a   
   > 'same sex union', regardless of how affectionately we may view it, is   
   > simply not, by definition, a "marriage."   
   >   
   > (I picked cat and person merely for the obviousness of it. No 'hidden   
   > meaning' implied).   
   >   
   > I'll note that the wording of Prop 8 suffers the same affliction.   
   >   
   > But credit where credit's due, the proponents of, so called, "gay   
   > marriage" have done an excellent job of framing the matter as fete   
   > accompli with hardly a soul noticing.   
   >   
   > >> >Did Loving vs. Virginia "mangle the language"?  Was it "PC gibberish"?   
   > >>   
   > >> You tell me. Just what words do you imagine the court saw fit to   
   > >> redefine against thousand year meaning or oxymoron to invent?   
   > >   
   > >Loving changed the definition of marriage in the U.S.   
   >   
   > That is simply not so. The meaning of marriage was not changed by   
   > Loving v. Virginia nor was it changed by the "Racial Integrity Act of   
   > 1924" that had prohibited interracial "marriages," just as the   
   > prohibition, or not, of possessing marijuana doesn't alter the   
   > definition of possession or of marijuana.   
   >   
   > In fact, you cannot prohibit, or make illegal, a thing, whatever that   
   > thing might be, unless you know what the definition of the thing is.   
   >   
   > The meaning of "marriage" has, on average, always been the union of   
   > man and woman, including the well know ramifications of such, and, in   
   > fact, it is precisely the well known ramifications of such a   
   > relationship that motivated the "Racial Integrity" laws as well as all   
   > the other, whether just or unjust, attendant laws; not to mention   
   > culture, social morays, religious ceremony, and so on. These things   
   > were not whole cloth inventions but, rather, evolved from conditions   
   > and behavior, including the ramifications of such, well known long   
   > before even recorded history. That is why the word exists: to describe   
   > that well known condition and behavior, including the ramifications of   
   > such.   
   >   
   > The word has no meaning and purpose the way you wish to 'redefine' it.   
      
   Of course it does, your objections not withstanding.  Loving "changed   
   the definition of marriage" exactly the same way that the Prop. 8   
   judge's ruling "changed the definition of marriage".  Legally, the   
   restrictions were considered arbitrary, without harm, and were contrary   
   to equal protection under the law.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)