There is no "ban" on gay marriage. There is a definition of "marriage" provided by the legislature. This is hard for the media, such as the Seattle Times, to accept. So, they call a definition a ban.
The manipulation of language by the media is nothing new and not what's most disturbing about the gay marriage nonsense, but instead the extent to which government has lost its head. Proving the present breakdown and dysfunction of our overly meddlesome government, Washington State's Supreme Court had a hard time upholding the plain definition provided by the Legislature. Our tri-partite form of government, with roles for each of the three parts clearly defined, requires the Court to defer to the law-making power of the Legislature. The Court's role is to interpret these laws, not to make them, and not even to render an opinion as to whether a specific law is a good thing or a bad thing (in their opinions). Meanwhile, the Legislature is free to define anything it wants, as long as it does not tread on a Constitutional right.
Washington's banana court performed its defined function, just barely, while blowing a gasket. The plethora of blowhard opinions from the various idiots on the Court shows just how difficult it was to stay in line. On top of that, even in the ruling statement, the Court found multiple ways to express their view that they don't like the definition of marriage provided by the Legislature.
"We see no reason, however, why the legislature or the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington."Oh, OK, so sometimes they do like the initiative process. And, we know what the self-rightous folks on the Court would like as a result from such a process:
"... a judge's understanding of the law is separate and distinct from his or her personal views aboud sound policy."I thought we already knew that one. The Court is just realizing this? At any rate, redefining marriage is clearly what they would like to see. Moreoever, they'd love to be the self assigned authority doing the defining, but in this case had a hard time making that final step to anarchy with something so much in the public's eye. Don't think they are above it, though, because they have not only redefined some things but even created laws having wide impact over the citizens of the state, such as "meretricious relationship."
All of this provides a reason why government should indeed dramatically redefine marriage, but not along the lines of what our robed masters would like to see. In fact, government should redefine itself out of the entire topic of marriage. From the standpoint of citizens, government, and the Courts specifically, marriage is nothing more than a squishy, ill-defined contract. It is different things at different times and especially in different courts. As in the case of the judicial invention of meretricious relationship, sometimes people who aren't married find that one branch of government magically says they are married. All in all, government has shown itself to be an incompetent and irresponsible arbiter of the institution of marriage.
Two individuals wishing to join in a union could do a better job than any of the branches of Washington State government. People should be free to define their own marriage contracts. Moreover, they should be free to call the contract whatever the hell they want. Could be "marriage," could be "helliage." If they don't want to go to the trouble of writing their own contract, they could use one provided by their institution of choice. For some, that would be their church. For others, a standard contract downloaded from the Internet. The Seattle Borg, who hate to think for themselves, could always just use one defined for them by government, which could provide it's own recommended contract. And, if a couple does nothing, they have no contract.
A man can contract a with another man. A Woman can contract with a woman. There would be no limitations except what is imposed by existing contract law, such as the fact that both parties have to be of sound mind in order to enter into the contract. Unfortunately for some of the more perverse residents of the state, that would exclude animals. Fortunately for the rest of us, that would also exclude children.
Then, maybe our state government could get on with doing the things government is good at doing, or at least those things that are best left to government. Definitions and redefinitions of marriage sure aint one of them.
So, yeah, let's use the initiative process. Let's use it to ban all three branches of government from ever uttering the word "marriage" again.
There's more! Click to read