And husband will always describe a man and wife will always describe a woman.
At this point voters are probably wondering why they bother to organize and vote for ballot initiatives for common-sense principles like racial neutrality in government or protecting traditional marriage when judges change the meaning of words and decide to strike down measures that received a majority of the vote.
Yesterday, a federal judge ruled Pennsylvania’s voter-approved measure that defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman unconstitutional. From WORLD:
“We now join the 12 federal district courts across the country which, when confronted with these inequities in their own states, have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil,” U.S. District Judge John E. Jones wrote in his opinion.
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett’s office defended his state’s law after Attorney General Kathleen Kane, who declared it unconstitutional, refused to fight the legal challenge. Corbett is likely to appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The article lists which states have redefined marriage and those that protect marriage. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. In the wake of these changes, traditional marriage defenders can take heart in knowing that words have meaning. Marriage, regardless of how the government defines it, has always meant the joining of man and woman as husband and wife. Two “husbands” or two “wives” do not and cannot make a marriage.