There is a reason these issues go to a high court. The text is ambiguous. High courts don’t take cases that can be ruled by a 10 second reading of the Article.
The text of the UDHR does not say anything about “one man one woman” or same sex marriage, or bigamy, or polygamy. If a question comes up regarding this type of behavior, someone is going to have to interpret. Take the actual text, and decide how it applies to a situation that is not specifically called out in the text.
Are they changing the meaning, or are they simply offering a different interpretation of an ambiguous text?
There’s no reason to think a court that narrowly interprets the law is more correct than a court that broadly interprets it. When the UDHR says “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind” one might think a broad interpretation is more in keeping with the original intent, than the narrowest one possible.
Well, they wouldn’t get too restrictive, certainly not one man one woman because there are still such Muslims who believe that Mohammed laid down the law, and the law is up to four.
That’s a fair point. Except that presumably there is no question that “arms” are now more powerful than flintlocks and muskets, but the question of “marriage” being expanded is still hotly denied by those who oppose these changes.
Says (in effect) that Stinger missiles may be protected under the 2nd amendment. If you can “bear” them, they’re OK. Cannons are definitely out, however.