Gay Marriage: Words must have a meaning

I didn't write this but I like it, and you should too:

Gay marriage is an issue that hits close to home with many of us. I’ve seen it up close. One of my sisters is gay, as is my oldest friend. I love them both, wish nothing but happiness for them, but oppose gay marriage. Not for religious reasons, I was baptized Catholic and that was about the end of my religious experience. But because words cannot be allowed to have their meanings changed for political convenience, words must have meaning. This is the perfect illustration of the difference between liberals and conservatives.

For centuries marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. Until recently the thought of it meaning a same-sex union would have been met with the same confusion you would get by pointing to a tree and saying “look at that fish.” But thanks to a liberal supreme court in Massachusetts, in one state at least, the word, thereby the institution, has a new meaning. The definition of the word marriage was deemed unconstitutional in Massachusetts.

But if word meanings can be changed to fit the whim of the times, what would we be left with? Skilled lawyers could invalidate any contract on technicalities because their client has a different interpretation of the meaning of the terms. Or someone could argue they didn’t commit perjury because the word “is” means something entirely different to them than everyone else hearing it.

Conservatives read the Constitution, see the words and recognize their meanings. We accept the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers when it comes to those words and, when those words are deemed inadequate or wrong, as was the case with slavery and the treatment of women, we change them through the channels the Founding Fathers set up for us to correct them.

Liberals view the Constitution as a “living document” open to interpretation. What the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote it is not as important as what liberals’ political agenda demands they mean at any given time. If the politically correct winds of the day don’t agree with Constitution you simply reinterpret the Constitution to fit your agenda.

That logic has brought gay marriage to Massachusetts. The word had a meaning, but that meaning no longer fit the liberal agenda, so they redefined it.

Liberal logic applied to my life would mean I could find a judge who was an animal rights activist and get them to change the meaning of the word dependent.

Dependent, in terms of taxes, has always meant children, but I don’t have any children. I have cats. Those cats are like my children. I love them, teach them right from wrong (in that they can’t go on the coffee table), give them food, shelter, and affection, just like children.

All I would have to do is get someone in power to redefine “dependent” based on a political agenda (be it vegetarianism or anti-fur) and take a $1,000 per cat tax credit. But I can’t do that because dependent has a meaning, and that meaning must stay the same as it always has been. Just like marriage.

Liberals argue that gay marriage is needed because of issues dealing with inheritance and hospital visitation. It’s sad that some families never accept their child’s homosexuality and fight their partners when it comes to such things. But those issues could be easily solved through a living-will and a regular will. Planning is the best medicine for these issues, not government.

They also argue for the same benefits as married couples when it comes to healthcare. That is not a government issue either. Companies themselves choose whether or not to offer families health coverage or just the individual, and many companies are already offering same-sex partner benefits.

The final argument they make is a civil rights one. They equate the battle for same-sex marriage with the struggles of African-Americans for equal rights. But that misses the whole point of the civil rights struggle.

It was a discrimination based upon how they were born. Blacks were denied full citizenship rights for nothing more than having different pigment in their skin than whites.

Gays argue their plight is the same, but I’ve never heard of anyone “experimenting” with being black in college, or having decided later in life they were black. Some homosexuals may have been born that way, but many enter and leave that lifestyle. Equating gay marriage with civil rights cheapens the struggle blacks went through to obtain equality.

Gay marriage is on the ballot this year, and not just in the 11 states with ballot initiatives. It is on the ballot at the top of the ticket. It is a choice between two philosophies, conservative and liberal. President Bush will defend the meaning of words while John Kerry comes from a point of view that encourages their liquidity. It is a choice with ramifications beyond just this one issue, but this is where the battle is now. I love my sister and I love my friend, I want them to be happy, but words have to have meaning.

posted by Some guy and some thoughts @ 1:19 PM