Wasserman's irrational premise is that the rule of law can exist without fixed definitions of terms. Without such definitions - of the term "marriage," for example - dictator wannabes in the judiciary would be free to make decisions in advance and manipulate terminology any way they needed to support the pre-determined conclusions, thereby replacing the rule of law with the far more arbitrary rule of men. This is what happened in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The proposal to explicitly define marriage does nothing more than reaffirm the rule of law and repudiate judicial dictatorship.