Cheers for the Alabama Supreme Court that said the federal court does not have the right to overturn state law. When 61% of the state's citizens poll that they wish to keep the traditional definition of marriage, no court should have the right to overturn the wishes of the majority.
My daughter shared with me some time ago that she was perplexed by this whole same sex marriage issue. As a mathematician, she is extremely logical and she saw this as a move to redefine something that was already in existence. One does not get to "redefine" something that is already the case.
Simple when you put it like that, isn't it? And the Alabama Court said as much.
To all of this, proponents of same-sex marriage often retort that there is no reason both the traditional definition and the new definition of marriage cannot coexist. On one level, that argument makes the erroneous assumption that the two definitions are not making different claims as to why marriage exists. On another level, it simply assumes that the definitions are not mutually exclusive.
Redefining marriage by definition implies that the traditional definition is inaccurate. In point of fact, we are concerned here with two different, mutually exclusive definitions. One that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and one that does not include this limitation. Both definitions cannot be true at the same time. Insisting that the law must legitimize one definition necessarily delegitimizes the other.
Advocates for gay rights and same-sex marriage are the new bullies in the schoolyard. And one does not stop bully behaviour by caving in to it and appeasing the bully. They always need to be told their behaviour will not be tolerated.
Unfortunately my country Canada always gives in to bullies. This is one reason why I like the US so much; Americans seem to have a backbone that we lack here in the north.