Redefined

As you've likely heard, "A judge on Friday struck down Arkansas' ban on same-sex marriage, saying the state has 'no rational reason' for preventing gay couples from marrying."

Most interesting to me was the judge's reasoning when he wrote, "This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality." Equality? No, "marriage". And, oh, it wasn't narrowing, but maintaining.

Then there was this little tidbit from one of those who sued the state in order to achieve her "marriage" license. "We think that (the judge) did a really great job and that he ruled on the right side of history." Talk about a redefinition. History has always maintained a definition of "man/woman" marriage, but this time the judged sided with history by going against it. That's a "good job"?

There are a lot of obvious places to comment in the story. The people of Arkansas voted in 1997 to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and passed an amendment to their state constitution "with the overwhelming support of Arkansas voters" in 2004. Doesn't matter. Didn't count. Neener, neener. There is the constant faulty connection between "who I want to have sex with" and race. There is that absolutely nonsensical "This victory is an essential step on the journey toward full equality for all" from the HRC which mandates that "equality for all" excludes Arkansas voters, Christians, and anyone else that thinks that history answered this question a long, long time ago. And, of course, there is this almost mandatory error of linking the stand on the traditional, heretofore unchallenged definition of marriage with a "gay marriage ban". You see, defining something as X excludes the rest of the letters of the alphabet, not just "Y". It isn't a ban of a particular type of marriage; it is a defense of true marriage.

But, then, given Americans' failure to think and the standard rule "If it feels like it it's true", I'm pretty much whistling in the wind here. It doesn't matter if they're wrong. They'll still change the world. Just not for the better.

Talk about redefining, have you heard about Chaz Stevens? He is a self-declared Satanist. Following the Supreme Court ruling that allowed prayers in public, Stevens demanded "equal billing". He wants to open the Florida State Senate with a satanic prayer. Yeah, okay, really not much news there. But here's the kicker. Stevens classifies himself as a Satanist and then says, "We allow various religious nutjobs to give a prayer. They pray to Jesus who is make-believe, god who is make-believe, why not Satan who is make-believe? Why discriminate against one make-believe god over another?"

Ummm, Chaz, buddy ... can you be a "Satanist" that believes that your "Satan" is make-believe? One cannot be classified as a follower of Satan of Satan if one believes no such being exists. You can't follow a nonexistent being. Now, of course, to be completely fair, I should point out that the world is full of people who are self-professed "Christians" without being actual followers of Christ. In fact, I know of some who don't even believe He exists. Some don't even believe He ever existed. So, on that side of the equation, we'd have to say that this notion of being a follower of a being that doesn't exist isn't new; it's just foolish. So, which is it? Has Chaz Stevens redefined "Satanist" to mean "someone who does not follow Satan" or is he simply one of a large group of foolish folk who have also defined "Christian" as "one who does not follow Christ"? I ask because I know there are a lot in that former topic -- those who redefine "marriage" (and "equality" and "democracy" and even "all") -- who also classify themselves as "Christian", so the two redefinition camps may end up merging.