And where is this “specific definition of a union between a man and a woman”?
Victoria Lamb Hatch

I think you pretty clearly stated my point that the courts have every right to require all citizens to have access to the same basic rights and protections under the law. However, what this court did was forcibly redefine terms which it should have no right to do. If a State chooses to define marriage legally as any union between adults, that is perfectly fine and it should meet the Courts valid demand that all adults have the same rights. However if a state defines marriage as it has been for thousands of years, as the union of a man and a woman, they should have every right to do that as long as an avenue for legal rights is also provided. The Supreme court has no right to force a homogeneous definition of something that is obviously and traditionally different. The court should not be concerned with social definitions, only law and treatment of citizens under the law. It is perfectly acceptable for the law to differentiate between things that are obviously different. There are laws that differentiate any number of things that are similar but essentially different. Laws often impact bicycles differently than cars though bicycles have every right to enjoy the same roads as automobiles.

I will note that when you say “the Supreme Court” decided, you actually mean a handful of members of the Supreme Court …a one member majority, decided. I will also note that very few votes by the people reflected a desire to redefine marriage as something other than a union between a man and a woman. I expect almost none would if an alternative legal union definition that did not deny rights were offered. The definition of marriage is completely different from the desire to protect rights. States are free to define any number of limitations on marriage such as age, between close relatives, species, number of spouses etc.

Also, to be pro-active….No, its not the same argument as a mixed race marriage. Its pretty simple, One has to inappropriately add additional defining terms to make a mixed race marriage illegal. For example marriage is between a (white) man and a (white) woman. WE generally do not allow laws that cite uncontrollable factors as a limiting factor unless safety is involved. An actual change in the definition needs to be made to allow marriage to be something other than a man and a woman.

Like what you read? Give TX Kevin a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.