Sunday, June 5, 2016

The Dangers of Bad Precedent and Changing the Meaning of Words (Part II)

There are dangers in changing definitions. The new definition of marriage is now: the union between two people based on the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell. Strangely, polygamist can use the same arguments used by the gay marriage movement to alter the definition of marriage to be: the union between multiple people. In fact, polygamy is more “deep-rooted in American history” and world history for that matter then gay marriage or abortion. This is what happens when people act quickly without thinking through rulings and decisions. This is what happens when the Court yields poor judgement and precedent.

Here is a good explanation of the Court’s findings: “The Court listed four distinct reasons why the fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex couples. First, "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." Second, "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals," a principle applying equally to same-sex couple. Third, the fundamental right to marry "safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education"; as same-sex couples have children and families, they are deserving of this safeguard—though the right to marry in the United States has never been conditioned on procreation. Fourth, and lastly, "marriage is a keystone of our social order," and "[t]here is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle"; consequently, preventing same-sex couples from marrying puts them at odds with society, denies them countless benefits of marriage, and introduces instability into their relationships for no justifiable reason.” So, why can’t these same findings or principles issued by the Court be used to further change the meaning of marriage to include polygamy? This was a major issue for Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent.

I certainly have my issues with religion (not faith). I am not trying to defend religion over gay persons. I am merely trying to point out the dangers of bad decisions and setting bad precedents. It can lead to more bad decisions and more bad precedent. The biblical definition of marriage has been around a long time and no one was trying to be bigoted, it is a fact: You need opposite genders to procreate. Not every group, school, or organization is all inclusive – this does not mean they are bigots that want to discriminate. But we can say the NRA discriminates against non-gun wielding Americans; NAACP discriminates against Hispanics; The National Organization for Women discriminates against men; Religion discriminates against atheists; and so on and so forth. This is ridiculous, people and classes of people should be able to define their guidelines for enrollment into their organizations and for their rituals.

A marriage license is not needed to insure families are protected. For instance, many companies recognize partners and their families to be included in the same benefit packages offered to married couples. There are very simple ways to compromise on this issue and to sit back and let it evolve over time. Unfortunately, this is not how the liberal mind or world works. And in their haste, they instead make dubious decisions that not only undermine the liberties of people they do care about, they create bad laws with ambiguous meaning to words that open up a plethora of problems down the road.

No comments:

Post a Comment