Mr Manwairing has considered the salient point WHY ssm is an anomaly. In a nutshell, the understanding of the word (marriage) is the strength of the courts power to say nay or yeah.
Scalia recently offered a masterstroke of a question: ‘when did it become unconstitutional for two people of the same sex to marry?’ In reality, he is simply asking WHEN did the court define marriage?? Brilliant.
Once we travel down the road of ‘changing meanings of words,’ where will it end? What is the limit then on people’s rights? Can a little girl go to the local notary and ‘marry’ her turtle? Can little Spike ‘marry’ his iguana? Can Suzie then have 2 wives, 3, 4?? Can Louis ‘marry’ his horse? Sounds off the wall, but that’s the point, it IS off the wall.
Once a word has lost its meaning, he with the cleverest imagination win’s the day, and who are you to question his ‘rights?’ Mr Webster would roll over in his grave upon hearing of the bastardization of a good word. Marriage has long been understood in the context of how it was defined: male and female, and I would add ‘male and female created he them,’ referring to he who arranged the institution. This can easily be left out without diminishing the common sense portion of our show.
How will this turn out? I think we are in for a surprise.