Words Have Meaning

The other day, Alaskan GOP senator Lisa Murkowski's "evolving" view on redefining marriage finally came to a rest. "I am a life-long Republican because I believe in promoting freedom and limiting the reach of government. When government does act, I believe it should encourage family values. I support the right of all Americans to marry the person they love and choose because I believe doing so promotes both values." Family values, eh?

In 2000, Californians voted to approve Proposition 22. Now, the proposition had a lot of text which, clearly, only a lawyer well-versed in constitutional law could understand. In order to demonstrate how convoluted this proposition was, I'm going to put it here in its entirety:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Yep. That was it. Not complicated. And voters approved it.

In 2008, the upset minority who didn't like voters approving this finally got it through the California Supreme Court who threw it out. While clearly and repeatedly recognizing that marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman, the court decided it was not in accordance with the state constitution. They ordered, instead, to redefine the term and begin allowing same-sex unions.

This lasted only until November, 2008. The answer to this problem, of course, was to make it part of the state constitution. So California voted in Proposition 8. Now these folks were clever. The wording of the proposition went like this:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Sound familiar? It should. The only difference between Prop 8 and Prop 22 was that Prop 8 added that text to the California constitution. There! Now you can't say it's unconstitutional because it's in the constitution.

Now, of course, it's before the Supreme Court of the United States. Because, you see, Californians do not have the right to have their own constitution. The courts decide what they can have. Sorry, folks. You can go about your business. Nothing to see here. And maybe you should simply ask the courts what you can vote on in the future. Losers.

Here's the interesting thing. I have never heard the media refer to either Prop 22 or Prop 8 (or DOMA, the origin of both) as defining marriage. They have always referred to it as outlawing "gay marriage". Now, wait a minute! I've put the text out there for you ... twice. If you will, please read them again. Can you point to anything in those texts that says, "It is illegal for a man to marry a man"? If you see it, you're seeing something that's not there. Unless you're willing to say, "That dirty rotten Prop 8 outlawed people marrying their dogs and cats", you're not being reasonable. It doesn't outlaw anything. It simply defines something -- marriage. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized." That is, marriage between a man and his dog isn't recognized. Marriage between a woman and the Eiffel Tower is not recognized. Marriage between a woman and herself is not recognized. (These are not mythical examples.) We don't recognize them as "marriage". You can do them -- all you want. They're just not marriage. Marriage has a meaning. Marriage means x. Anything that is not x is not marriage. Does that exclude something? Well, yes -- anything that is not x. But that's the nature of definitions. Red is a certain color which fundamentally excludes blue or green or yellow. It's the nature of definitions.

I spoke to a woman the other day who lives with a man neither her husband nor the father of her children. I asked if his kids were there for Father's Day. They were. "Good," I said, "since that's what defines him as 'father'." "Oh, my children define him as father, too." And we have now seen an illustration of the decay of the definition of "family". No, there is no blood tie. No, there is no marital tie. But we're "family". So when the California Supreme Court struck down their Prop 22, they did it because of the intrinsic "right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one's choice." And the Supreme Court, if it rules, will assure us that it is the right of an individual to marry whomever he or she wants, a patently foolish claim. (Seriously, does anyone actually support that position? Because, while that is the #1 thing I hear on the subject, I know of not one single person that actually believes it.)

Will this redefine marriage? Of course! And apparently "limited government". And love. And family values. And family. And monogamy. And fidelity. And parenthood. And ... oh, this list just goes on and on.