I am an opponent of gay marriage.  I resist its proponent propagandists on a religious level, on a level noting its destructive nature toward the family, and because of the elements of its advocacy, seriously...how many leather clad chaps sans panties do I have to see on television at every gay parade?

Yet, I don't believe this debate can be won on any of those levels. If we leave it to religion to decide we soon discover the myriad denominations (and congregations within larger denominations) that embrace the loving nature of the homosexual relationship and perform union ceremonies for any who seek one.  

Its tough, too, to make a legitimate argument against gay marriage in family destruction circles, when it is straight marriage participants that first bastardized the blessed joining of two opposite sexed individuals.  As a divorced single parent I must personally help shoulder the responsibility for the destruction of marriage and the family with the same fervor that we expect Oscar Wilde and Bill Tilden must, or should have that is, if they hadn't been spending all their spare time chasing around young boys.  

So it is the angle of language that gives me the firmest and most reasonable footing from which to deny SSM.

Our culture and country find their footing in the language and on the firmness of its foundation.  We enjoy the right to keep and bear arms as long as the country allows the language to mean exactly what it has always meant and stays within the context of the framers.  Ditto that for rights of expression, religion, non-incrimination, etc.

How long will we have any inalienable rights in a time where the definition of inalienable itself is fluid?  

How much time really elapsed between the penning of Animal Farm in which we learned of the concept "more equal," and a soon to be disbarred lawyer pompously challenging his questioners with what the "definition of is, is."    

Language cannot be allowed to be fluid in a society that is serious about its ideals.  

The commerce clause now controls whatever bureaucrats want it to control because of language abuse.  The 2nd amendment has somehow been framed by many on the left as a hunter's concern or, as Joe Biden so eloquently frames the context, the right of his wife to scare off an intruder by loudly unloading her shotgun into the air illegally. Kelo tells us that eminent domain can mean I get kicked out of my house so that a large corporation can locate somewhere near my old back porch--a water park or hotel will, after all, produce more tax revenue than I ever will.  

Meanwhile, a right to privacy has been breathed into a document where it had never existed, while the freedom of religion as it was intended to mean 200 plus years ago, has been exhaled out.  

We all know what a balanced budget is, but we're still learning what a balanced approach is.  (One balances and one doesn't.)  We also have learned that a budget cut means nothing of the sort and that an investment by government means the rest of us are gonna get hammered on April 15.  

Ultimately we find ourselves where we are today, on a town square where some deviant can legally display his bare ass for the kiddies to see while those same youthful eyes are spared the sight of a Nativity.

Marriage has been defined for thousands of years as the union of a man and a woman.  It is not a chair, it is not gun, it is not the union of two men, two women, or that of a woman and an amusement park ride.

Through all that is America, and all that it shall become, language matters.