Words matter.
In the Affordable Care Act Supreme Court decision of last week, Justice Scalia bemoaned that “words no longer have meaning” - a declaration that could just as well be ascribed to their June 26th landmark decision to federally mandate the legal validity of same-sex “marriage” across all fifty states.
“It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the ? if he ?if "is" means is and never has been, that is not--- that is one thing.If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.” [1]Or perhaps it began with the hijacking of the rainbow. You know the one that God set in the sky to signify his covenant between Himself and every living creature upon the earth that the waters shall no more destroy all flesh, the colors of which now mockingly fly in the face of God in a pseudo-victory dance for two more hijacked words: gay liberty? The same colors which ironically danced across the waters of Niagara Falls, excited little children at the Disney World castle and flagrantly bathed the United States White House? Those who ascribe America’s liberty to the Judeo-Christian God might think this prismatic flag upon our nation’s house akin to Antiochus Epiphanes' erection of Zeus' statue in the Jewish Temple.
“Today we treat people, equally. And that really is the fundamental promise of this country. And that’s what this issue is all about. ‘Marriage equality’ we called it. I used to say it was more about the second word - ‘equality’ - than the first word. It was less about marriage, more about equality. Marriage is an individual choice. I’m not married. Equality, equality is not a choice. Equality is a promise. And this was about equality. And this was the rallying point - and really, the crucible where the LGBT community said to this nation, ‘I want to be treated equally in every way.’ Marriage became the proxy for that. Then we started to talk about civil unions if you remember. Civil unions actually advanced the entire dialogue because what civil union actually said was, ‘we will give LGBT couples all the legal rights, but we won’t call it ‘marriage.’ That actually sharpened the debate and inflamed the debate because then the gay community said, ‘no that’s not what I want. I want it to be ‘CALLED MARRIAGE.’” [2]Marriage itself is not about equality. If it were about equality, then homo-sexual relationships - not marriage - would be more “equal” than hetero- by its true definition: likeness, evenness, uniformity, sameness (Webster’s first dictionary of 1806). I think we might all agree there is no uniformity in the true physical union of a man and woman - were it so, there would be no need for government for there would be no society to govern. Therefore, if equality were what the homosexual community truly wanted, they’d be overjoyed with equality in the eyes of the law, in the form of Cuomo’s proffered “civil” unions which could remedy all inequities through the Constitutional legislative process. But it is not equality they want, it is a redefinition of, a coup on, the sacred definition of marriage. Marriage is a term of no value unless we understand its context. As Scalia also remarked in the Affordable Care Act decision, “Context [of isolated words and sections of a law] always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them.” [3]
Marriage’s context comes from the original lawgiver - God himself, not man’s interpretation thereof and thus to define it any other way than its intent is to violate the term, or if I might borrow a new word I learned from Scalia’s dissent to Justice Roberts’ majority opinion, “interpretive jiggery-pockery.”
Yes, the context of words matter and all the manipulation of words to dance around issues; to indoctrinate a culture; to confuse the masses; to call evil, good and good, evil; didn’t begin with President Clinton, or even the hijacking of the rainbow - it began in a garden when the great deceiver of old questioned, “did God really say?”
[3] King vs. Burwell, Justice Scalia, dissenting, II, p 3.
Scriptures referenced: Genesis 9:11-16; 2:23-24; 3:24