If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

CALIFORNIA JUDGE DEFIES THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, WHO HAVE VOTED TWICE TO DEFINE “MARRIAGE” AS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN

by Don Hank, blogging at http://laiglesforum.com/2010/08/05/same-sex-marriage-there-is-no-such-thing/

(Aug. 5, 2010) — We now know that a judge activist in California has taken it upon himself to change the definition of marriage. This action on the part of the judge is, sadly, accepted in the media through their use of a fallacious term: “to strike down.”

As Gregg Jackson points out, the idea of “striking down” laws makes judges lawmakers, and our media, even on the right, have contributed to the social acceptance of this fallacious notion.

But there is another more basic aspect to this “same-sex marriage” issue that we all have been missing.

First of all, let me establish my credentials to discuss this issue as an actual expert. I am a linguist (specifically, a technical translator – previously a language teacher) by profession. God has been kind enough to enable me to learn to read over 20 languages, all of them natural ones (in contradistinction to Esperanto, for example).

Now, in all 600+ of the world’s languages, there is a word equivalent to “marriage” in English, and in all cases, without exception, this word means a union between a male and a female. In a few cultures, polygamy is allowed, and marriage can therefore be between one person of one sex and several of the other. But in all cases, the marriage is between one sex and the other.

Now what is natural language? It is a code system devised naturally over time – by the mother of all invention – so as to enable effective communication between human beings in the performance of myriad cooperative tasks. Among natural languages, there are none that have been devised by governments and higher agents. One’s status has never allowed anyone to override the will of the people in constructing or modifying language. In other words, even kings have traditionally had no role in shaping language. Thus language is the last bastion of democracy in the world, so if we give it up, we are truly throwing in the towel once and for all and placing our heads dutifully on the chopping block like Perdue’s chickens. We are the people and we must learn to hold to traditional natural definitions, because we are by definition the sole legitimate shapers of language.

Although the California judge has declared unilaterally that a man and a woman can now be “married,” he has overextended his authority in so declaring. He may have the right to decide many things, but he may not redefine natural language. It is simply beyond his purview.

No judge is granted, under the Constitution, the right to change natural language. The only reason some think we can have “same-sex marriage” is because the public has foolishly, and gullibly, accepted this recently coined term, which contradicts the commonly accepted definition of marriage, namely the idea that marriage must necessarily be between a man and a woman. Otherwise it is not marriage, and it cannot be referred to in law as marriage as long as it falls outside this original, natural definition.

For example, women are allowed to have hysterectomies in America. But does a man have the right to a hysterectomy?

Think about it. Do you as a male have that right?

No. Why? Because you are being denied your Constitutional equal rights?

Not at all. It’s because the definition of hysterectomy does not apply to you due to your anatomy. The “liberals” (another word grotesquely redefined) could issue a court decision granting that right, but no matter what the surgeon did to you under that new “right,” it would not be a “hysterectomy.”

In other words, the issue is not equal rights for homosexuals. Rather it is whether or not government has the right to tamper with our language against the people’s will. Just as a judge may not grant a male the “right” to a hysterectomy for practical reasons, so he may not grant two persons of the same sex a “marriage,” and for the same reason: anatomy.

If enough media outlets floated and defended the idea that laws and judges do not have the power to change language, which is by definition an instrument of communication arising solely from the people’s usage (nota bene: it was the people of California who decided the definition in a referendum), then this whole idea of “gay” “marriage” would shrivel up and blow away.

Why no one has noticed this obvious fact is absolutely beyond me.

The definition of words is paramount in a society of law, because all of law – which is nothing but a meaningful assemblage of words – is reliant on definitions.

If we continue to allow definitions to mutate under the influence of a tendentious leftwing media, education system and government intent upon unraveling millennia of culture, as we have done for at least a half-century, we will just continue to lose our culture and eventually become slaves to the new wordsmiths of change.

All of culture – like law – ultimately boils down to definitions. The culture changers on the Left know this much better than most, and we have allowed them to steal our definitions of Christianity, decency, morality, pro-life, human rights, sex roles, and now marriage. And all because no one was paying attention.

Maybe conservatives think the idea of preserving the definitions of words is too abstract and egg-headed to be of any use.

If so, they are dead wrong, and eventually they will be wrong dead.

Let me kick off this new war strategy by being the first to state unequivocally:

Government does not have the right to redefine words in a natural language such as English.

I therefore hereby deny the existence of “same-sex marriage.” There can be no such thing, ever.

If enough of you start saying this, often, to friends, family, co-workers and anyone you speak to on this subject, and really believing it in your hearts, the Left will have to give up this important part of its endeavor to undermine the family.

Stop being wishy-washy enablers. Become effective challengers.

Join the Conversation

20 Comments

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. This is not about Prop. 8! We must get the language correct. This is about ARTICLE 1 of the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION!! which states:

    SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
    recognized in California.

    H***sexuals and anyone else that celebrates this recent ruling in CA have no idea what a beast they have unleashed, one that will happily eat friend or foe.

    We must be very careful not to discuss this in any terms that mask what it truly is; a usurpation of the sovereign power of the state and the people in it to order their lives as they see fit.

    A federal judge has no jurisdiction at all when it comes to a State’s constitution! If California had a man for Governor and an AG who believed in the rule of law this would never have happened.

    Talk about a slippery slope. What’s to keep someone else from looking to nullify other parts of the CA Constitution from filing suit and getting this less-than-legal mind to rule in their favor?

    Like this gem.

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
    SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
    discrimination or preference are guaranteed. …. A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of
    his or her opinions on religious beliefs.////

    This so-called judge has already written of his disdain for tradition and traditional beliefs. It is not a stretch to see him ruling that only atheists can be on juries.

    Why have constitutions at all? If one man can nullify part of one why not the whole thing?

  2. The gay community is a protected class. As a group they cannot be discriminated against and have equal protection under the law. It is unconstitutional to discriminate against Gays and their right to “marriage”. However, ignoring the settled issue of voters voting it down is tyranny and never before done. This is over the top. The issue is the ‘voice of the voters’ were ignored. How can this be? This is USA and the voters decide. Or at least they used to before what’s-his-name came onto the scene.

  3. Our founders justifiably warned us about tyranny, not only perpetrated by the Executive and Legislative branches, but by the Judicial branch as well. Activist judges veritably infest our judicial system. To many of them, the Constitution is but an annoying inconvenience, something to be circumvented by judicial fiat, and something to be reinterpreter, redefined. The overreach just never seems to end. Like abortion, since when did gay marriage become a constitutional right? I had always believed it was a social issue which each State could deal with and define. And if folks in that state were dissatisfied with the social norms in that particular state, they retained the right to MOVE to another state more in tune with their social beliefs. I am confident that is what our founders had in mind. Makes perfectly good sense. And to have to listen to the muddled legalistic arguments justifying this overreach is infuriating , to say the very least. Well, polygamists, it’s your turn now. Go get ’em.

  4. That was not exactly correct. Most cultures have their own word for “marriage” but means the same thing. However here in the US, we call it Marriage. Which by tradition of our culture and history means a man and a woman. How are these sabotages to our AMERICAN way being allowed to happen?

  5. I have been wondering this same question. How can the gay and lesbian people be allowed to call it “marriage” ? If they want to live together, just live together with their own type of ceremony and call it whatever they want. Joined, united, or something they feel comfortable with. The word “marriage ” is reserved for a union of one male and one female. All cultures all over the world for as far back as we have history have decreed it so.

  6. Jetstream you nailed it! Our government feels it is above the law, it is corrupt, every branch is diseased. This corrupt judge, among many others are interpreting “law” however they want; they interpret “We The People” as ME the People (what do ME, MYself and I want?).

    On a side note thanks Auntie M. Another example of the majority being ignored and “they” doing whatever they damn well please. Kagan is more trash brought in by the head Grifter, OilBama. As if our Supreme Court needs another ignore the Constitution, do nothing, look the other way judge. We are in deep doo doo.

  7. “Schwarzenegger calls for same-sex weddings” – The Oakland Tribune –

    And he’s doing this at the time when the prop-8 ask the court to hold on the ruling that finds that homosexual marriages ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT:

    […] Opponents of same-sex marriage said they want Proposition 8 to stay in effect until their appeal of Walker’s ruling.
    They argued in court papers filed earlier this week that resuming gay marriage now would cause legal chaos if the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or U.S. Supreme Court eventually reverse Walker’s ruling. […]

    http://www.insidebayarea.com/twitter/ci_15697360

  8. Corrupt court, corrupt judge, corrupt proceedings, corrupt reasoning – and full blast contempt for the California voters –

    Corrupt judge – here’s from LA Times: […] Over their vigorous objections, Walker pushed to have the proceedings televised live, a plan the U.S. Supreme Court quashed at the last minute. […]

    The idea of having the proceedings TV covered was clearly concocted to intimidate the prop 8 party (the abusive ways of the gay gang behind the anti prop-8 move are well known), belongs to Alex Kozinsky, the president of the Circuit, he himself a a notorious leather-chrome-flogger San Francisco type.

    So, Kozinsky’s and Walker’s actions were clearly aiming at distorting the integrity of the proceedings in this case – the fact that SCOTUS had to intervene and admonish these two creeps (rare, rare fact in the American legal history), shows the cloud of corruption that has tainted this case –

    As far as the hypothetical stay on his ruling, Walker gave ONLY TWO DAYS to the pro-8 party to prepare the argument of why he should do that – TWO DAYS ONLY, and this for a case that might inflict upon this nation a legislation with ENORMOUS (AND BAD) CONSEQUENCES – TWO DAYS only, which again shows the abusive behaviour of this crew –

    And, of course, no matter how valid the pro-8 argument will be, Walker will bounce it, and press ahead with his destructive policies –

    3) This situation also, creepily reminding Ronald George (Calif Supreme Court) who, in 2008 was asked by the prop 8 lawyers to postpone his “yes” to the gay marriage, because the polls showed that his ruling would be anyway overturned by the voters (and 7 million of them) in the next weeks – and he refused to do so, intentionally conmplicating the sitution –

    We live in a country under occupation – and these “judges” are simply doing what ever they desire, inflicting their views upon the population –

    Now back to Alex Kozinsky, Walker’s boss and accomplice – below is the link to an LA Times article about Kozinsky which shows that he used to (and still does) keep a website that displays explicit, and deeply mysoginistic pronographic content –
    What for someone else would have been a career-ending situation, in Kozinsky case proved to be… well, you know enough about the MSM corruption:

    Here – “Porn trial in L.A. is halted – Judge grants a stay after conceding he maintained his own website with sexually explicit images.”

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/12/local/me-kozinski12

    More research on the web gives more details about Alex Kozinsky will certainly give anyone the sense of why Kosinsky and Walker are completely unfit for reasoning in this prop-8 case – and actually how both are entirely unfit for any judicial job that requires a modicum of restrain and adherence to common mores –

  9. The cultural battle is already lost. Gay marriage will become a reality and enacted into law in all 50 states, eventually. This is because of an insideous tactic used by supporters of gay marriage, namely, claiming restrictions on marriage on the basis of sexual orientation is discriminatory. Raising the D-word scares a lot of people, and causes them to not defend their convictions.

    The interesting question is, what’s next? Which will be the next restrictions on marriage that will be challenged on the basis that they are discriminatory? Will it now be okay, for example, to marry your mother or father, your sister or brother? What about group marriage? What is if two guys want to marry two women, or any other conceivable combination? Once the original basis of marriage is shattered, that is, the definition that marriage is between a man and a woman, the floodgates appear to open in terms of challenges on all restrictions because of their discriminatory nature.

    1. “Discriminatory”??? Why is not Vaughn Walker’s personal opinion of HYIS definition of “marriage” discriminatory.

      It is liberal and now lesbie/queer/transgender/(and soon no doubt bestiality if the judge is attracted to, say, his Great Dane) fantasy run wild under guise of “law”. This pervert has now MANDATED that all such “couples” (and I use the term loosely; pun intended) MUST “marry”.

      What a grossly perverted and nonsensical bit of self-indulgent nonsense. This guy doesn’t even seem to know what the word means and he only THINKS he is free to redefine it for everyone.

      Judicial impeachment is very much in order. HOW DARE HE???!!!

  10. Again common sense is proved to be the bane of those who would reduce life to a convenience allowed by governments for the good of the community. Here is a word that all languages also hold as universal, freedom. When we are forced to accept anything as a society we are not free but the subjects of some higher power which is unnatural. History has recorded quite well the fate of those who would rise above any people, sit in judgment and rule over them. They are known as despots and dictators and even a slyly engineered cabal with those same powers is no better.

  11. This judge is gay! He should be thrown from the bench because he has overturned the votes of 70 million ppl. What use is that we should ever vote again if a judge can overturn our votes. He had no business ruling in this case. This was a state issue anyway.

    I hope the people get him thrown out of office. How is this constitutional? It isn’t.

  12. A splendid delineation by Don Hanks as to how these activist “judges” seek to pervert the language AND the culture that uses it.

    Judges such as the one who “decided” this case (when he did no such thing but expressed his own personal homosexual bias) must needs join the ever-growing (and rapidly so) panel of judges identified as scofflaws as I mentioned in my earlier piece about judge Bolton in Arizona’s illegal immigration case and even earlier about Appeals judges in the 3rd Circuit and the District judge whose decision was being appealed there. They all are using any pretexts they can latch onto to bypass the law and subvert it.

    These people have been wrongfully emplaced in a position to corrupt not only our laws but our very culture and everyday life. When combined with a purported President who is also a scofflaw it becomes intolerable.

    Some wholesale changes are needed. Don is quite right; judicial overstepping is indeed what is going on right under our very noses.

  13. Amen and thanks to Don Hanks for his good words on the intellectual dishonesty of leftist propaganda, which is based on the kind of word-spinning so tellingly portrayed by George Orwell in his little book “Animal Farm.” Yes, the pigs are running the farm now, and many of them call themselves “judges.”

    1. Harry H.:

      It’s good to see that someone else had recognized george Orwell’s “Animal Farm” as highly representative of what our society is becoming. His “1984” novel expresses the misspeaks so frequent – almost universal in come circles – today, but the gist of the political system was more correctly described in his “Animal Farm”.

      In that novel, we see in our current putative President what I can only view as the equivalent of the power-hungry pig, Napoleon who becomes a totalitarian dictator leading the Animal Farm into the “All Animals Are Equal / But Some Are More Equal Than Others” oppression.

  14. Absolutely one of the best observations I have ever read. This is the KEY method used to subvert our culture. Change the meaning of our words. Submission becomes Peace, Bias becomes Diversity, Theft becomes Social Justice, Control becomes The Greater Good.

    Please write more on this subject!

  15. The enclosed item from Free Republic illustrates just how incredibly stupid this alleged judge is. “Unconstitutional ” doesn’t even come close to defining what he is “Ordering”…. yes.. “Ordering”……….. All queers are to be married by this time next year……….I guess since he is also a member of this abhorrent persuasion known as “Gay”, it makes some kind of sense to him. I think he’s a nut!

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2565128/posts