tifosi77 wrote:I actually don't disagree with Shyster's point of view about the definitions of words being critically important. I'm not an attorney, but I am a paralegal and spend my days reading and drafting legal agreements and so I encounter many of the same conflicts that Shyster is talking about. We revel in the differences between "pursuant to" and "in accordance with", between "best efforts" and "commercially reasonable efforts".
And that's actually the whole point of this debate. Words matter. And sometimes they matter so much that changes in their meaning are acceptable, perhaps even necessary.
I admit that my position on the meaning of “marriage” is rather picky. And it’s no reason to deny homosexual couples full equal protection under the law. I would prefer for the government to be completely neutral on whether something is a marriage or not. For example, I would revise any applicable statutes to refer to “domestic partners” or some similar term for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Leave whether something is a “marriage” up to churches and private individuals.
As a libertarian, I basically resent any situation where the government wants to tell me to think a certain way or that I must accept a certain concept. I oppose anti-discrimination laws not because I believe that some people are inherently inferior or anything like that, but because I don’t think it’s the government’s business to tell people what to think, who to associate with, or how to run their private businesses. I equally don’t think it’s the government’s job to force a certain definition of marriage on the people.