So will John Boehner block the vote on ENDA?

Except it doesn't say that

 

I'm saying what is written in plain English. As I said, I know what the intention was, but a judge could easily interpret the language as written as not excluding same-sex couples since "men and women" could be seen as synonymous with "people". Easily. Judicial activism? Probably, but that's what ambiguous language creates.

 

MEN and WOMEN.....indicates ALL men and women.

A Man and A Woman....indicates ONE Man and ONE Woman.


The first does not state ONLY a man and a woman....the second might.

 

Revealing the mental gymnastics you perform to make sense of your perception of the world.

 

This "Mental Gymnastics" you see is actually the use of the English language and an understanding of it's use...perhaps you might benefit from a bit of mental exercise yourself.

 

Repetition of a line doesn't change the reality of what is plainly written. No specific exclusion of same-sex couples exists.

 

There is only the inclusion of men and women with a human right to marriage, PLAINLY written, in 1948. You people make so much hay out of the absence of an explicit prohibition between two people of the same sex when in 1948 marriage had only one meaning, between "men and women". But you people want us to believe that every signatory country in the world since 1948, up until just recently has been violating the UN declaration of Human rights. And thet 90% of the countries continue to do so. That in 1948 "men and women" was used to avoid any confusion that the right to marriage might be limited to only men or only women. ABSURD mental gymnastics, like I said.

 

What you say and what is plainly written are often two completely different things as is the case here.

The fact of the matter is I never denied the original intention was to declare only men and women have the right to marry eachother, just that that is not what is written. The language as it stands is ambiguous.

And as previously mentioned many signatories of the declaration violate its principals. This means absolutely nothing in reality.

 

???? The language is clear. Just like Californias marriage statute in 1872 that Rahl so vehemently denies limiting to heterosexual couples.


"Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage... "

 

It is anything but "clear.". No specific prohibition of same-sex couples from marrying exists in the language as written. Sorry.

 

Yes it does.

Words have meanings. Our city ordinance for dog owners and the license required doesnt contain a specific prohibition against cat owners receiving a license, but in fact such licenses are limited to the owners of dogs. Words have meaning.

 

Of course I deny it. There is no limitation anywhere in that statute.

 

Words also change meaning, as they have repeatedly throughout history. Many dictionaries include same-sex marriage in their definition of the word, and the majority of people do not consider a marriage between members of the same-sex to be a misuse of language.

Same-sex marriage checks all the boxes - it is socially recognised, legally recognised and to be found in many dictionaries.

 

Those changes take effect AFTER the changes and don't act retroactively to change the meaning of the word used decades before.

 

And the laws which further refine the definitions of words for LEGAL purposes, have a practical effect.

- - - Updated - - -

How you think marriage should be defined, is not necessarily the LEGAL definition of the same.

 

It is then the legislature/people's job to keep up with the evolving meaning of language and amend the wording, as it was done in 29 states. In a state like New Mexico, however, the wording (similar to the UN Declaration of Human Rights) was NOT amended to reflect reality as it stands, so it is ambiguous in meaning. If the power to amend it isn't there, the support for excluding same-sex couples probably isn't there either.

 

Nothing was changed. The same meaning that had always existed in the statutes, was put into the constitution to elevate the same meaning above that of any silly court decision some judge could come up with.

 

Like you said, words mean something. "Men and women can marry" can and certainly does mean the same as "people can marry" since generally speaking people are either male or female. The only thing the former establishes is some kind of age limit.

 

Absurd. In 1948 "marriage" had only one meaning. We might someday decide to define Face Book friends as a marriage. Doesnt create an international Human right to marry your face book friend.

 

Ridiculous comparisons aside, if meanings change (including LEGAL definitions of marriage in 16 states) then the law needs to clearly reflect that. It WAS reflected in 29 states through their constitutions. It wasn't in New Mexico however, and with the statutes clearly gender-neutral it's about to become the 17th state where same-sex couples can marry.

 

LOLOLOL! Yeah, so the courts who change the definition to include gay couples can allege motivations of animus towards gays for doing so.

And not sure of the relevance of New Mexico.

 

New Mexico is relevant because it defines marriage in a similar way to the UN charter or some pre-SSM ban states - that is to say, it's technically gender neutral. No prohibition of same-sex marriage anywhere to be found.

And courts alone didn't "create" the concept of same-sex marriage. They certainly didn't in NH, ME, NY, VT, DC, MN, IL, WA, HI, MD or DE anyway.

 

Minn. St. c. 517, which governs "marriage," employs that term as one of common usage, meaning the state of union between persons of the opposite sex. n1 It is unrealistic to think that the original draftsmen of our marriage statutes, which date from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense.� The term is of contemporary significance as well, for the present statute is replete with words of heterosexual import such as "husband and wife" and "bride and groom" (the latter words inserted by L. 1969, c. 1145, �� 3, subd. 3).

n1 Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1966) p. 1384 gives this primary meaning to marriage: "1 a: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife." Black, Law Dictionary (4 ed.) p. 1123 states this definition: "Marriage * * * is the civil status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

We hold, therefore, that Minn. St. c. 517 does not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex and that such marriages are accordingly prohibited.

 

That's nice, not really relevant now that the meaning of the word has shifted both "technically":

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual of married persons : wedlock c : the whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry &#8212; J. T. Shawcross>

http://i.word.com/idictionary/marriage

Socially:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/sex-marriage-support-solidifies-above.aspx

And of course legally.

You couldn't very well come to the same conclusion in light of those changes. Same-sex marriage is a very real and recognized thing. No prohibition anywhere to be found unless it specifically excludes them, as is the case in 29 + 4 states.

 

Like I said, changes to the meanings of words dont act retroactively to change the meaning of the words use, decades ago.