"Same-sex marriage"? There is no such thing!

By Donald Hank

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 man 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.

© Donald Hank