JUDGES AND THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE.
What was so confusing about that?
If here was one issue that was dividing the nation, it would be how marriage should be defined.
Some judicial judges did not even understand the situation; and they would go along to make matters worse for all concerned, instead of using a little bit of common sense, which incidentally has become very rare in society nowadays, in making vital decisions.
"If we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost automatic deference to Congress' will, this statute fails that test," said the three judge panel. (CNN, 6/01/12, on the DOMA case).
However, the point was a simple one, that nobody in his or her right mind could stop any pair of individual people cohabiting out of their own free volition; and the judges would agree with that; but it was just the word "marriage" that should not be extended to cover such unions.
It was like a prison group wanting to have the same name as "The American Bar Association", and that would be contested from the United States Supreme Court to eternity; but the fact remained that the prison group could legally use that name.
Yet, what amount of confusion that would create, if that was permissible; and that was exactly what the Homosexual and Lesbian communities were asking society to do.
Headlines like , "Worldwide push for marriage equality" should be incorrect, because no culture on earth would say that homosexuality and heterosexual behavior should be classified under the same category. Why? Because they were entirely different life styles.
What many people were doing, and in particular, judges who would want to legislate from "the bench" was to put those that were clamoring for same sex "marriage" in a box.
They would come under the nomenclature of "marriage", but they would still be isolated or marginalized by a great majority of people; and that would result in making the discrimination of such types as homosexuals or lesbians even worse.
If there should be equality in advocating for any type of legal rights for any group of people, they should agree to operate under a different name or names and argue for those rights. That would be the only way to bring equality about; and brand names like "domestic partnership" or "civil union", were those to consider.
A federal law could be made to define all those categories to the letter, that the meaning of each category was not the same as the other; but they would all have the same legal rights.
The "automatic deference of Congress' will" would not apply, if DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) would fully be categorized, as to "which was which", in reference to all the numerous life styles, for judges to clearly see their way through the law.
That would help society as a whole to be conversant of what marriage legally meant; and that would cut the BS going on.