The definition of the word isn't 'changing', it is being changed, by legislative and judicial fiat, which involves the gross corruption of fundamental terms in the Constitution such as "rights", and "equal protection". This is not the terms of this country, which is a Republic and not an oligarchy.
Originally Posted by afr0byte
Words cannot simply "change", and particularly not when they are tied to the fact of human biology, and recognition of definitive value to society as a whole, and they have not changed. They have been changed, but illegitimately changed by decree of a few.
Scalia wrote a scathing dissent which is unlike any other dissent ever produced, indicating that the majority was filled with venom and discord, essentially indicating that the Court had denigrated to a barroom brawl, not the rule of law, and this is the result of social engineering and progressive ideology, the dictate of a few, in disregard for that rule of law.
Scalia wrote that Kennedy and the majority regarded those in opposition as "enemies of the human race":
But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "disarage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
And this is from a Court Justice!
Quite obviously, neither the court, nor the federal government overall, were created for the purpose of "imposing change", but were rather instituted in the Constitution with limited powers to specifically prohibit any legitimacy to that sort of dictate.
Scalia even references the "majority" of Congress that voted for DOMA, and how the court is assuming the same enmity to the human race by them as well, despite the fact it was passed by 85–14 in the Senate, and 342–67 in the House, and signed by Clinton. Not only that, but Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14, and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65.
Scalia writes of the opinion,:
"Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament."
The problem here is obviously what is being exhibited is not at all "judicial temperament", not at all judicial restraint, not thoughtful resolve, but rather the arrogant superiority of those who imagine they are entitled to dictate the terms of society, even when that authority is not provided them, not even this Court -- Liberal fascism.