America's New Constitution

Here's a new one. Well, it starts out not so new. The courts have outlawed marriage in Florida^[1]. They have upheld something else not yet clear. And it's been happening all over the country. But the reason is interesting. "Specifically, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle, clarifying a previous order, ruled that all Florida clerks are bound by the U.S. Constitution not to enforce Florida's gay marriage ban^[2] and that any couple seeking a license should receive one."

Wait ... when did the U.S. Constitution concur that "marriage" is no longer defined as it has always been defined and is now applied to ... whatever it is now applied to? Where is that in the Constitution? Oh, don't tell me your "equal rights" baloney. You have to be 18 to marry. Why are 17-year-olds not allowed? Where are their equal rights? You can't marry your dog or your pillow or your favorite roller coaster (I chose all those because they've been tried). Where are their equal rights? You can't marry a male and a female. Where are the equal rights for bisexuals? People into polygamy or polyamory can't marry as many people as they choose. Where are their equal rights? Oh, no, this isn't a constitutional issue. It isn't an issue of equal rights.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it bind anyone to radically alter the meanings of words and concepts like "marriage" in order to give this new concept with old wording to others who haven't had it before. No one believes in "equal rights" in that sense^[3]. So why this one issue? (Rhetorical question.)

Postscript
Normally I put a label on posts like this with something like "same-sex marriage" or the like. I didn't. This isn't about that. This is about the lie that this is a constitutional issue, a "marriage equity" affair. Oh, it's an affair, but it's not about equality.
________

^[1] "Now, Stan," I hear already, "they haven't outlawed marriage." When you take a word ... say, "blue" ... and you define it as "my dog" and indicate that anyone using that concept of "blue" must use it with "my dog" in mind, you have outlawed "blue", at least in its original form. You haven't merely expanded it. You've redefined it, eliminating the original definition.

^[2] Apparently the Constitution does not address enforcement of the "ban" on every other form of marriage that we can imagine.

^[3] Think I'm wrong there? Try it out. Try redefining ... oh, I don't know ... "pedophile" as "anyone who loves children" and see how they like it when those who love children go to prison for being pedophiles. No, they only buy into that redefinition nonsense as long as it suits their personal preferences.