Definitions

In light of this week's Supreme Court rulings, here are a couple points to consider: 

First: this is a definition issue: marriage was originally designed and historically defined as between a human male and female. In today's current debate, one side of the argument wants this definition to resign. But if that is the case, then we must all become okay with calling apples oranges and oranges apples. A definition is a definition. If you change one, you must be willing to let all other definitions be changed as well. 

Second: this is not a rights issue. (Setting the definition issue aside for a moment) access to marriage is not a right. I do not have a right to get married. It may happen, it may not. It is a privilege to be married, and one I hope to have the chance to experience, but it is not something I can demand as a right. So to make this a rights issue makes no sense.

Third: in light of this previous post, this is not a discrimination issue - read the post for more words around this.

Fourth: this ruling, if voted in favor of the left, will be the largest take away in State's power since the Healthcare Reform. It removes the States' rights (in the truest sense of the word) and puts (even more) power in the hands of the already-too-bloated-and-powerful Courts.

Fifth: this is a human issue -- meaning personal lives are in the mix. We must ALWAYS treat the opposing side with dignity, respect, truth, and love. There is no room for any other treatment, or our argument is lost to the wind, or worse -- a clanging gong that rattles peoples' ears.