The dictionary definition of marriage is the legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman.
The dictionary actually disagrees with you on this:
Marriage:
1. (broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established invarious parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognizedlegally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example,opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:
Marriage Define Marriage at Dictionary.com
Marriage is what we agree it is.
A union of 2 people of the same sex is not a marriage.
Says you. Both the dictionary and the law of 37 of 50 States disagrees with you.
But hey, you continue to believe that the union of 2 people of the same sex is not a married. And gay people will keep getting married.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
First, according to Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755 edition) a marriage is very simply defined as ....
"A contract between a man and a woman"
Therefore a man and a man nor a woman and a woman contracting between one another cannot be defined as a marriage under the proper definition of such.
What most seem to be attempting is to redefine words to make them fit that which they wish. Two men, or two women having sexual relations are quite simply defined as sodomites, there is no such word a homosexual, nor is being "Gay" defined as being a "Sodomite", such made up words, or misused definitions are used because using the proper definition seems to harsh, or may harm the tender sensibilities of those who practice such, but the truth is the truth, and facts are facts. Now, a marriage being simply "a contract between a man and a woman", there is no reason, (and it is a constitutional guarantee) under
Art. I, Sect. 10, of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution that we hold the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else, therefore two men, or two women who wish to practice sodomy, and live and contract the same as a man and woman who are actually married, they have the constitutional guarantee to do so, and that contract is binding and enforceable, however such is NOT a marriage. A civil union would be the proper definition of such a contract as that between sodomites who wish to establish such as the equivalent of a marriage between themselves.
Now we come to the issue of rather or not each individual State retains the authority to prevent Sodomites from contracting such as that of the equivalent of a marriage between themselves without violating the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?
We need look at this point to....
United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts.
The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:
"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:
"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?
"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.
So we see here that the U.S. held no jurisdiction in a murder even on a U.S. war ship as it was anchored within the jurisdictional waters of the State of Massachusetts.
As well as ....
New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), the question before the Court involved the attempt by the City of New York to assess penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report as to the persons his ship brought to New York. As against the master's contention that the act was unconstitutional and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court held:
"If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction," 36 U.S., at 133.
"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.
Again the only real question is NOT that of whether or not sodomites may marry, but rather a State retains the jurisdiction to prevent Sodomites from contracting a civil union between themselves that is the equivalent of a marriage?
By definition there is no such thing as a marriage between two men or two women.
One thing for Sodomites to consider is that once they do form such contract, they then enter into UCC jurisdiction which opens up a can of worms that they may wish they had not opened.
Last: In my opinion, unless it can be proven that Sodomites contracting the equivalent of a marriage is in some way infringing on the life, liberty, or property of another, then a civil contract falls under their individual retained right under Art. I, Sect. 10 of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution.
