Ancient and Modern History of gay marriage.

[Zantar]

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1693353

Interesting...

[Nicola]

Thanks Zantar, that was informative.

[shamecube]

I can understand people being upset about gay marriage. I used to be against it--and I'm gay. I felt it wasn't necessary and it sort of crashed a hetero ideal. But after seeing all this stuff on TV and doing my (for lack of a better term) "husband's" taxes, I've started to look at things differently including the relationship I've shared with him for over five years.

Now, what I can't understand is why this makes any difference to people who aren't gay. When I heard our president talking about how gay marriage would ruin the sanctity of marriage, I just got so angry. For years and years I had to put up with people who treated me as if my feelings didn't matter and that I deserved to be called a fag because I "chose" this lifestyle. Anyone who has ever been in real love knows that you don't choose it, it chooses you. So now I hear all this crap on tv with people arbitrarily talking about my life and love as if it were a football game.

If we want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, how about we outlaw staging a fake wedding for a million dollars, or mail-order brides, adultery, divorce, prenuptial agreements or any number of things that cheapen it.

Bottom line: How would you feel if you were told you couldn't marry the one you love and that a constitutional amendment was necessary to keep you from ever doing it?

[Antrobus]

This is the topic of a thread on"Kansas" which I've participated in.
The one thing that I find interesting is that it's been about 10 days and 3,000 + marriages later in San Francisco and who has it caused any harm too?

No one was struck by lightening! No one went to hell in a handbasket! The incidence of child molestation remained the same! Religions are still intact! So WHO or WHAT has it hurt??

No one and nothing!

It HAS allowed two human beings who are in love the opportunity to get married. In a society that urges marriage and considers it a great sanctified institution, why should that society deny marriage to certain citizens of this country and not to others? Are not all equal under the US Constitution?

As for George W. Bush, he's the WORST president (IMO)I've ever seen in this country in my 47 years! The damage he's done is severe! Now he wants to tinker with the US Constitution in what is an issue that needs to be left to individual states and their court systems.

As for those Gays and Lesbians who have gotten married - CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!

edited to add
If I sound p*ssed, I am!!!:mad:

[Zantar]

Honestly what the san francisco mayor did was a bit illegal. It is in the books in CA that marrriage is between a man and a woman, and that is a state power. So he didnt really have the right to overrule it, and now that he did he has kinda unleashed the dogs of war. So now its going to be one hellish battle agaisnt this amendment.

That being said i support gay marriage 100%. I dont see anything wrong with it, and certainly dont see how it hurts the sanctity of marriage at all. Marriage in my mind is between two people who love eachother...thats it!

This whole amendment idea is just foolish. Amending the constitution is a drastic step and should ONLY be done for issues that cant be solved any other way. Its completely inappropriate IMHO to use that for the definition of marriage, which is traditionally a state power. The federal government needs to step away from it.

[mfa96]

I think way to many people care about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.

There are a couple of things that make me wonder about the governments role in this.

If this issue is based upon religious beliefs, why is the government getting involved- after all what about the separation of church and state?

That being said, what about gay/lesbian couples who are of a different religion or are atheist?

And lastly, what about heterosexual couples who are married by a Justice of the Peace- how does that fit in religion-wise? After all if this is about a religious belief (all critics of gay/lesbian marriage that I have heard, are against it on religious grounds) how do people who oppose gay/lesbian marriage feel about straight couples not married in a church?

It seems almost paradoxical to me.

[Mrelia]

Sheesh, if people are going to form a life-long partnership, I think they oughtta have the same rights and responsibilities as any other couple. Whether they call it marriage, partnership or a civil onion is immaterial.

I'd rather watch a thousand gay marriages than a single episode of those "Bachellor" and "Bachellorette" shows. Eeeewwww!

[waltersgirl]

If we want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, how about we outlaw staging a fake wedding for a million dollars, or mail-order brides, adultery, divorce, prenuptial agreements or any number of things that cheapen it.

outlawing those things are no different, idealogically, than outlawing same sex marriages. it is government interference in the private lives of its citizens. although, i do understand your point of frustration.

i don't think prenuptial agreements cheapen marriage at all, as its, [marriage's], foundations in legality derived from the tranfer of wealth and property.

also, i don't think divorce should be outlawed. it's no one's business if i decide i no longer wish to be married to my spouse. marriages should instead, i think, be more difficult to initiate, not end.

adultery...who sleeps with whom is not the government's business. nor is it society's at large. it's the business of the involved parties and any deities they believe in. if government shouldn't be involved in the private lives of its citizens, then it shouldn't be involved in the private lives of its citizens...at all....


the sanctity of marriage, or its lack thereof, is the responsibility of each and every individual that chooses to share a union, not any government's.

[NebariNookiee]

Antrobus mentioned the "Kansas" board discussion – and I’ll reiterate here what I said over there!

To amend the Constitution to effectively ban anything is ‘prohibition’ – which is fundamentally flawed and is a really stupid idea.

“Institutional Sanctity” is an oxymoron.

And besides – the “sanctity” of marriage went out with the advent of “divorce.”

[waltersgirl]

why is divorce seen as undermining? is there a human that exists that has never made a bad decision? should two people whom, in good conscience, believe that their union is a good one then discover that they are deeply wrong be forced to stay together in an untenable situation? must they suffer for society to be fed is illusion of so-called stability? what if the couple are from traditional families in a culture where marriage is arranged and they have no say in the matter? must they be condemned to live together so that society gets to feel collectively better about itself?

[BlackThorn]

I watched "Iron Jawed Angels" the other week. No, the movie is not about this topic, but I do have a reason for bringing it up. Angels was about the suffrage movement and the women who fought for the rights women enjoy now (I must say it's a movie every American woman over the age of 18 needs watch.) In the movie, the women were angered when President Wilson claimed upholding democracy and the rights of the people over in Europe as the reason America was going to war, when he was ignoring the rights of a segment of citizens in his own country.

I bring this up because what's happening now rings so close to that other part of American history -- to me at least. It upsets me that our government would again go to war to defend the rights of the people of another country and then turn around to push for an amendment to our constitution that would reinforce the restriction of rights of a segment of our citizens. It hurts to see this from my country.

The only way I can describe my feelings about the whole push for the amendment thing is "disappointed" and "saddened." Perhaps "betrayed", but I can't quite pin that one down yet.

[waltersgirl]

you know, i see those metaphors as totally appropriate, but i don't have the same reaction, Blackthorn. which is funny, because i'm vehemently against the proposal. i don't see it as a flaw of the country, or the president, or whomever proposed it. i see it as a country that allows people to voice their opinions, and then, hopefully, the citizenry will engage in a collective dialogue and come to a decision that will cause no harm. i am of course biased as to what decision i believe will cause no harm, but i am not outraged at the proposal. the folks that came up with this are making a proposal they believe is right. democracy is messy.

[scrape_medic]

Originally posted by waltersgirl

adultery...who sleeps with whom is not the government's business. nor is it society's at large. it's the business of the involved parties and any deities they believe in. if government shouldn't be involved in the private lives of its citizens, then it shouldn't be involved in the private lives of its citizens...at all....


the sanctity of marriage, or its lack thereof, is the responsibility of each and every individual that chooses to share a union, not any government's.

Absolutely, agree with you on that one. I think the only point at which any government should intervene is if there has been some deception or other intentional criminal act, like say for instance, bigamy.

I also agree with the point made that it seems strange, that whilst defending civil marriages, the religious argument is used to decry same sex marriage.

Oh, and apparently I am not a 'whole person', cos I am neither married nor have kids..

Does that make me a kind of second-class citizen too.

[BlackThorn]

I'm not outraged by it. I'm just disappointed. To me, it looks like a step backwards. While it's truly a small step in comparison, it makes me wonder how big the next step will be and the one after that. Why are we first taking steps to push for an amendment of the constitution to restrict what marriage is, instead of first taking steps to push for a civil union that gives equal rights and responsibilities to all couples who wish to make that commitment?

Or perhaps I'm just losing faith in the system and the majority of the population to come to an agreement that, as you said, causes no harm. :shrug:

[waltersgirl]

but we've always been like this. it's the nature of folks. someone is going to want something or believe something that someone else doesn't.

as long as it's open for discussion and people remember that this is a representative democracy so they need to speak their concerns to their representatives, then it's not a bad thing by default.

[scrape_medic]

Do they have to come to a decision at all. The process of descision making results in a decision that maybe a majority of people will agree with, but it is a decision of "least harm" not "no harm".

If same-sex couples want to have civil marriage, unions or what ever you want to call it, then they should. If their religion allows for it, even if it is only on a local level, than they should be allowed to express their religious beliefs as well. If it doesn't then hey, what the hell, they have to live with THEIR decision.

But it should NOT be something that is decided upon by a bunch of suits, who, and this is my opinion, will pander to those who they think, will get them re-elected, and who probably have no involvement with gay/lesbian couples in their lives.

[NYPinTA]

It does seem to be a step backwards IMO.
I think the problem a lot of people are having is with the word marriage. That word does have religous connotations even though we use that word to describe hetrosexual couples who go to the justice of the peace. So, really what needs to be done is legalizing 'civil unions' first. Then if people really feel it is necessary they can push to get churches to recognize their unions as marriage.
Of course, I could be oversimplifying things.
I think G.W. proposing an ammendment is really just his way of making a huge statement of his feelings on the subject with out really expecting it to happen. Doesn't it take a reallllllly long time to get an amendment passed? I don't think it ever would anyhow, so he feels safe in proposing one. But they did show a clip on the news last night of him statiing before he was elected that the issue should be decided by the states not the federal government... I guess everyone is allowed to change their mind hmmm.

[BillFrugge]

Originally posted by Antrobus
As for George W. Bush, he's the WORST president (IMO)I've ever seen in this country in my 47 years! The damage he's done is severe! Now he wants to tinker with the US Constitution in what is an issue that needs to be left to individual states and their court systems.

I happen to know that you are also a Democrat party representative, so I suspect that has a lot to do with your opinion of George W. Bush. You don't like the direction this country is going in, that's fine. That's your opinion. Worse than Jimmy Carter? The man who weakened this country so bad that we were held hostage? That's pretty bad.

And you know full well the process of a US Constitutional amendment. It isn't simply a matter of signing an executive order. After ratification in the Legislature by 2/3 vote, it MUST be passed to the People of the United States for a vote where it must pass by 3/4 of the states. So you see, it is left to the individual states. Courts, as I'm sure you're aware, aren't involved in making laws. It would take a lot more than just Republicans and George Bush to "tinker" with the Constitution. Source: NARA (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/constitution/amendment_process.html)

At any rate, this amendment is about reinforcing a law previously enacted by President William J. B. Clinton. If you have any problem with "The Defence of Marraige Act," I suggest you take it up with him. But what use is a law anyway? We can always disregard laws like we do in San Francisco.

Marraige, however, is not a creation of the government or courts. It is defined in the church. States recognize these marraiges and conduct a few of their own. If you want "seperation" then you are really saying that the local judge cannot be allowed to marry people. Defining it should really be a moot point as stated here.

Now, I have a question. What is gained by marraige? I've read all of these comments about why they want marraige, but I've never heard why anyone's life would be improved by it.

[fermicat]

Originally posted by BillFrugge
Now, I have a question. What is gained by marraige? I've read all of these comments about why they want marraige, but I've never heard why anyone's life would be improved by it.

There are a lot of tangible benefits to tying the knot. Some of these include rights of survivorship, ability to include your spouse on your health policy, ability to act as next-of-kin, ability to visit spouse in hospital or other facility when visitation is limited to "family only", ability to jointly own assets, etc..

[mfa96]

The following is a link for those with a sense of humor about this- if you can't laugh about the issue, don't click (I know, it's like saying don't think of a white horse, but I tried....). I will say, that this little flash cartoon is pro gay marriage- so if that offends you, please go to the next post :D



http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

[DRD2001]

#1. I don't like what is being done in San Francisco because the gov't should uphold the law. Not break it. If they don't like the law, then repeal or change it. Gov't officials should not be encouraging people to commit crimes, no matter how stupid they feel the laws are.

#2 Has it occured to anyone that Bush does not expect this marriage amendment to pass? But if he tries and fails, he satisfies many of his conservative and religious allies by trying, and keeps many of his other constituants happy by not actually suceeding.

#3 Now, I have a question. What is gained by marraige? I've read all of these comments about why they want marraige, but I've never heard why anyone's life would be improved by it. It is a mental state. Knowing that you are legally recognized as being part of another person. I lived with my husband for a few years before marriage. I know now that I will always be there for him, and he will always be there for me. I know that I am responsible for making decisions which may effect his life. Not his parents. I will be allowed to be with him if he enters a hospital. When he is away for a day or two, the house is empty and I miss him. It is like part of me is gone. And being his wife, I spend more time thinking about him and his wishes. I look forward to growing old with him.

If I were homosexual, I would want to be able to marry because almost all cultures, regardless of religion, encourage the union of people. I would like to be treated as a caring feeling human being and be given the same rights as others. I don't think it is too much to ask.

Could I have gotten all this just by shacking up. Probably. But legally, I would have no guarentee. But to twist your question back at you, why are heterosexual people getting married if there is no benefit. Just so they can have sex sanctioned by the church, cause many have had sex before marriage already.

#4 Marriage can also mean "an intimate or close union ". We hear of the marriage of companies or art forms and styles all the time.

[BlackThorn]

Originally posted by DRD2001
#2 Has it occured to anyone that Bush does not expect this marriage amendment to pass? But if he tries and fails, he satisfies many of his conservative and religious allies by trying, and keeps many of his other constituants happy by not actually suceeding.

That sounds like selling out for one's own personal best interests to me. Another reason why I hate election years. Mind you, I'm not saying he is selling out, only what I see that scenario as being.

mfa96 -- Now that was funny. :lol

[BillFrugge]

Originally posted by fermicat
There are a lot of tangible benefits to tying the knot. Some of these include rights of survivorship, ability to include your spouse on your health policy, ability to act as next-of-kin, ability to visit spouse in hospital or other facility when visitation is limited to "family only", ability to jointly own assets, etc..

I've always felt that the hospitals were wrong to exclude anyone from visitation. Under what circumstances is visitation limited to "Family only?" Is that solely due to a request by someone, or is that hospital policy? Perhaps I just don't understand, but close friends/whatever ought to be allowed to visit.

A lot of companies are starting to offer benefits to partners. I think that is a growing trend, and it seems quite reasonable to me. Is that what is meant by including on your health policy? I've always assumed that meant naming as your beneficiary. (But, you know about assuming. ;) )

The ability to act as next-of-kin is significant. I think I could agree with that. When I think of the Schiavo case in Florida, I consider that to be very important.

I'm sorry that I haven't read up on the 'civil union' bit. Does that concept address these issues? Does 'civil union' equal marriage, but just not in name? At the root of the argument, are we just arguing about what we call it? Or is there a problem with acceptance?

Don't get me wrong. I may be opposed to it, but I don't really care one way or the other. I'm open to changing my mind, and I am symapthetic about these concerns. My concern at this time has been about a Mayor deciding to interpret laws on his own and going against a law voted by the people of his state. (The proposition was passed by 61% of the citizens of California.) I know this thread isn't about that mayor, but it does have an affect on my opinion. We may have been working slowly on this issue, but the Mayor has pushed it into a major election year issue, and that will result in political posturing by everyone without actually solving anything.

[Antrobus]

Worse than Jimmy Carter?

As I see things, yes! I just can't see anything that he's done that's good for average US citizens. But, it's off topic and parts of it are banned, so I'll stop there!

Of course a Constitutional amendment takes a long time to bring to fruition. I understand that there are some from the mid 19th century that are still hanging out there in limbo. Hopefully this one won't get any further than from GW's mouth. Because in my opinion it would be a massive step backwards in the onging civil rights struggle.

My hope would be that this issue could go back to individual states and the proper dialogue could take place there and that some sort of common ground (i.e. Civil Unions) can be found. Compromise is usually the best solution to these kind of polarized issues.

I think San Francisco's act of disobediance was to take the Mass. court ruling and act on what that ruling said (knowing full well that California's Supreme Court would likely rule in the same manner if a similar case came before them.) They wanted to get, and got, big attention. I'm not saying that the marriages were staged or phoney because I think those that got married were sincere. However, I think that San Franciso took the opportunity to burst this issue wide open.

Its been simmering for a long time. Why? Because many people don't want to show their true colors when debating this issue.
Two years ago in Maine it was tried (for a 2nd time) to get the law on Equal Rights wording to include Gays and Lesbians. All the polls taken showed that it was doing well and looked like passage was a green light! It was defeated.

Many analyists felt that during polling people said they supported the inclusion of Gays and Lesbians in the Equal Rights law, but once they got in the private voting booth they voted against it.

That's why trying to debate the issue is SO difficult because you have to take one side or the other. Many people (including elected officials ) don't want to do that in public. They just wish the issue would go away.

Whether San Francisco's actions have hurt or helped the cause is beyond what I can predict. But, it has forced the issue on people whether they want to try and hide from it or not.

...and now we know where GW stands on this issue! (Which didn't surprise me anyway)

[mfa96]

Random thoughts...

Chicago's Mayor Daley has said he would be okay with Cook County granting gay marriage certificates.

http://www.chicagosuntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gay19.html

And right here in Florida, Ellis Rubin is going to sue for gay couples to have the right to marry.

http://www.nbc6.net/news/2872405/detail.html

Got to love Google....

[fermicat]

Originally posted by BillFrugge
I'm sorry that I haven't read up on the 'civil union' bit. Does that concept address these issues? Does 'civil union' equal marriage, but just not in name? At the root of the argument, are we just arguing about what we call it? Or is there a problem with acceptance?

From what I have read on the issue, civil unions are not recognized by the federal government, therefore some benefits that are available to married people would not be granted to those with a civil union. An example is survivor social security benefits. Also as it stands now, civil unions are not recognized by most other states, so if a couple moves or travels there could be a lapse in benefits.

I use to wonder why gay people would not be satisfied with civil unions until I read about the issues above. Because if it were just different in name, I think they should take it, rather than holding out due to idealism. But since there are practical reasons for the insistence on the marriage moniker, I don't blame them for trying to get what they want. [Although I am a pragmatist, and if this were an issue I were fighting for I might be inclined to go for gradual changes and take the best option I could get for now.]

[BillFrugge]

Originally posted by Antrobus
Of course a Constitutional amendment takes a long time to bring to fruition.

I think San Francisco's act of disobediance was to take the Mass. court ruling and act on what that ruling said (knowing full well that California's Supreme Court would likely rule in the same manner if a similar case came before them.) They wanted to get, and got, big attention.

Many analyists felt that during polling people said they supported the inclusion of Gays and Lesbians in the Equal Rights law, but once they got in the private voting booth they voted against it.

Whether San Francisco's actions have hurt or helped the cause is beyond what I can predict. But, it has forced the issue on people whether they want to try and hide from it or not.

Wow! I think you and I are in total agreement here. (At least the parts that are on topic... :D )

Yeah, I don't think this amendment will go anywhere. I would be surprised to see it clear the house or the senate. I don't believe we'll get to vote on it at all.

The Mayor pushed it too soon. I think the Mass. descision presented him the opportunity, and he'd been wanting to do it. He's citing a discrimination law to trump the proposition, but I think that the 9th circuit will back him up. I don't believe the Supreme Court would even consider hearing an appeal. But, I could be wrong.

Some issues, like this, are hard to get an honest debate about. It's easy to say you support something, and then vote against it when no one can tell how you voted.

This issue will have to be decided soon, if it hasn't been made already. My opinion is that the floodgate is open, and you can't close it. It's too late for compromise.

[vacantlook]

Does 'civil union' equal marriage, but just not in name?

Marriage vs. civil unions? There's no comparison (http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11421&sd=02/24/04)

The difference between the marriage rights that gay couples are seeking and the civil unions that some Massachusetts lawmakers want to give them are potentially vast, touching on almost every aspect of living and dying. The immediate practical difference, however, may be nearly nonexistent due to a 1996 law blocking gay couples from receiving hundreds of federal marriage benefits, including an array of tax breaks and Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and pension allowances for spouses.

But without being able to call it marriage, gay couples and their advocates argue, they will never have the opportunity to challenge that federal ban in either the legal courts or the court of public opinion. "We won't even be able to get in the door to be heard about it," said Claire Humphrey, 45, who lives with her partner and two children in the Jamaica Plain section of Boston. "As we've seen from Vermont, it doesn't even open the discussion."

In an effort to win legislative support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, several Massachusetts lawmakers have proposed the simultaneous legalization of some form of civil union benefits for same-sex couples. Because of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, legislative leaders say, there is no practical distinction between the two relationships. "It would be a huge difference if that federal law wasn't on the books," said Massachusetts senate minority leader Brian Lees, who cosponsored the "compromise" with Democratic house and senate leaders. "But as it stands, I believe that with the exception of the word 'marriage,' all the rights and benefits would apply."

Legal experts and gay rights advocates agree that in a very technical way, that may be true, depending on which benefits lawmakers may decide to give to same-sex couples. But they say the word alone provides benefits, offers protections, and erases gray areas--particularly in private employment benefits--that civil unions would not address. "The major distinction is that a couple who is married in a state is married everywhere and will be recognized all over the world," said Nancy Polikoff, a law professor at American University. "But with civil unions, as soon as they go anywhere else, they will notice some major differences."

Beyond the letter of the law, advocates say, institutions will be more likely to recognize marriage--a universally understood concept--than they would partners joined in a civil union. For instance, a company may feel compelled to give family leave benefits to a married gay employee, even though not required to under the federal law. "Doors would open even if theoretically and legally those doors are supposed to be locked, because everyone understands what marriage is," said Mary Bonauto, an attorney with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who represented seven Massachusetts gay couples in a landmark case decided in November. "Civil union takes a lot of explanation."

In response to the state supreme judicial court decision, which ruled it unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, the legislature is currently debating a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The debate will resume at a constitutional convention March 11 on Lees's proposed amendment, which would provide civil unions as an alternative.

Civil unions convey only the approximately 350 state benefits of marriage, while marriage would also--potentially--convey about 1,000 federal marriage benefits, which many consider essential for financial security. For instance, partners in federally recognized marriage are guaranteed the right to live out their last days together in the same nursing home room. Partners in civil union are not. Married couples are married no matter what state they're in. Partners in civil union are not, because only Vermont has something called "civil unions" on the books.

A widow is entitled to an array of financial protections, mainly through Social Security, when a spouse dies. The survivor of a civil union is not. Married couples can share ownership of their worldly goods--homes, cars, salaries--without paying a cent in taxes. Couples in a civil union cannot, leaving them vulnerable if the partner with the name on the deed dies. "My husband and I are treated as financial strangers, yet we live our lives as an economic unit," said Robert DeBenedictis, 41, who lives in Cambridge with his partner and two children. The men exchanged wedding vows in 1997, though the union held no legal weight.

The differences between marriage and civil unions could become even more stark if the legislature is allowed to define which benefits are included in civil unions--as would be allowed under one proposal. Some advocates have said that could lead to a very limited form of recognition. While civil unions have been offered as a compromise, lobbyists on both extremes are not satisfied with that solution. "It's just marriage by another name," said Ron Crews, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, who would prefer an amendment that simply banned gay marriage.

For gay couples, the idea of civil unions--once a radical thought in Massachusetts--now seems to pale in comparison to the rights the court said they should receive. "When that decision came down, I felt what it was like to be an equal citizen," Humphrey said. "And now that I've sampled that, I can't get the taste of freedom out of my mouth."

[Antrobus]

[Although I am a pragmatist, and if this were an issue I were fighting for I might be inclined to go for gradual changes and take the best option I could get for now.]


I agree, but on the other hand the Civil Union option wasn't getting anywhere. Most states (like mine) can't even get Gay and Lesbian (let alone Transexual) wording in their Equal Rights laws.

It seems to me that the issue had to be cracked wide open if it was ever going to really get acted on. And, so it's been done. I don't think Civil Unions in place of marriage is ultimately acceptable, but at least it was progression in the right direction regarding an "equality for all" approach.

The Mass. Court ruling said: "Seperate is rarely, if ever, equal".
I keep that phrase in mind when I approach this subject. The phrase makes perfect sense and expresses why ultimately Civil Unions are not "the prize".

However, social change is slow in its progression and I'd hate to think of hate crimes going on the rise because of this debate becoming so "in your face".

As the old saying goes, "the squeeky wheel gets the grease" and it seems that that squeek just got real loud!

[BlackThorn]

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the " Defense of Marriage Act" .

SECTION 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL.-CHAPTER 115 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, IS AMENDED BY ADDING AFTER SECTION 1738B THE FOLLOWING:

"1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.".

SECTION 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL.-CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 1, UNITED STATES CODE, IS AMENDED BY ADDING AT THE END THE FOLLOWING:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.".


Err . . . doesn't this go against Article IV of the US Constitution?

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

So basically, states are supposed to recognize the "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" of every other state, according to Article IV. Yet, if a state deems to marry a same-sex couple, none of the other states are required to recognize that marriage, according to the DoMA.

Err . . .

Edited because Bill was kind enough to point out my total brain fry moment. :D

[BillFrugge]

Originally posted by BlackThorn
Err . . . doesn't this go against the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution?

The amendment protecting citizens against unreasonable search and seizure? They didn't propose to send stormtroopers into houses looking for evidence of illegal marriages. So I don't think it is a violation.

Originally posted by BlackThorn
So basically, states are supposed to recognize the "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" of every other state, according to the 4th Amendment. Yet, if a state deems to marry a same-sex couple, none of the other states are required to recognize that marriage, according to the DoMA.

Err . . .

Please go back and correct this... Your references to the 4th amendment are confusing. Do you mean the 10th amendment? Sadly, the way I read the 10th amendment, if the states don't stop the Federal government from passing an overreaching law, (not prohibiting it) then they do have the power to do it. But yes, if Mass or California were to pass a law permitting gay marriage, the other states are not required to recognise it.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[BlackThorn]

Sorry, brain fart on wording. Happens sometimes when I'm typing on meds. I meant the Article IV - State's Relations. Going to go back and edit that. So sorry for the confusion.

[Darth Buddha]

BlackThorn, you are on a roll here!

Excellent job on the Constitutional analysis!

[BillFrugge]

I'll have to think Article IV over for awhile. Ariticle IV, Section 2 was altered by the 13th amendment, so it would not be unreasonable to assume that this new amendment would re-write Ariticle IV, Section 1 with the consent of 3/4 of the States.

The way it is currently written, it looks like Congress may be able to re-interpret the Article as they please to support the DomA of 1996. I need to read this a few dozen times...

[NYPinTA]

Originally posted by Darth Buddha
BlackThorn, you are on a roll here!

Excellent job on the Constitutional analysis! Except for those pesky ammendment numbers. ;)

Edit: IMO permitting and recognizing gay marriages will be good for the economy. More halls being rented, florists and caterers hired including their staff, dresses to be made, tux's.... and think of the new magizines devoted to weddings!! The mind boggles.
And the honeymoons. Tourism could really use a boost. And here it is.

[BlackThorn]

Bill, I hear you on the reading it a few dozen times.

Another one I'm looking at is the 14th Amendment (yes, I double checked and I'm referring to the correct one, this time :D ) and some of the implications of conflicts between that and the DoMA. Need to finish reading before I post anything on it, though.

[grinner]

Originally posted by fermicat
There are a lot of tangible benefits to tying the knot. Some of these include rights of survivorship, ability to include your spouse on your health policy, ability to act as next-of-kin, ability to visit spouse in hospital or other facility when visitation is limited to "family only", ability to jointly own assets, etc.. wow... those are definitely the reason that I want to get married... for the tax benefits... [/sarcasm]


The Federal Government should NOT be offering Marriage licenses at all. What they should do is make everything Civil Unions... as that is what they are. It is a business contract. If you look at it that way... it would clean up the divorce proceedings. By making then more like Business Contracts... you would be able to set up out-clauses and other aspects. That is... a Partnership. A Partnership can be an expensive thing to get out of in Business... so treat it as a Business.

Then if you want your Church to offer a Wedding... you can have one. When a Minister officiates a wedding... he becomes, for the duration of the service, a government employee. When you have the 'Signing of the Marriage License'... that is all that is required. By changing the terminology to Civil Unions... what harm is there. Then you won't have Religion involved at all. No Government Marriage.

Or is it that those that support gay marriage want to further erode any institution that they don't technically 'fit' into.

[BlackThorn]

grinner, I wouldn't be opposed to that at all if it meant that "civil union" took on the same legal rights and responsibilities that apply to marriage now. As it is, a civil unions and marriages don't share the same things legally. Marriage, Civil Union, whatever people want to call it, I'm just for all couples that decide to make that agreement/commitment having the same legal rights and responsibilities.

Back to reading.

[Darth Buddha]

You are dead on target, grinner. A true libertarian solution.

And I actually share some of your suspicions regarding motives to want the status of "marriage" -- some, not all, of the gay community I know really want to "stick it to" or "get in the face" of conservatives. That sort of sentiment scares me... it could lead to passage of this latest Amendement proposal by George Bush.

BTW: Were it to define marriage as between man and woman and simultaneously define civil unions that are legally equivalent, everywhere, I'd gladly campaign for the amendment's passage.

[NYPinTA]

See, the whole problem is just the word. Mahwage. A Bwessed event....

Edit: sorry I don't know how to spell a marriage spoken by someone with a speach impediment.

[grinner]

I am talking about getting the Government out of doing a historical Religious Institution, Marriage, and having EVERYONE do Civil Unions. I don't care that two men or two women want to 'certify' a union. Two men, two women, or a man and a woman... I don't care.

What I care about is the historical Religious Institution of Marriage. The Government got into the business of licensing Marriages in order to Tax and register those that were entering that union. By getting the Government out of Religion and Marriage... that should be something those that think that Religion should be entirely out of Government should want. If everyone used a Civil Union... patterned after a Business Partnership (cause that is technically what it is) there should be no problem. Then if you want to go the extra step and have your Union recognised by the Church... you have a wedding. It is the Terminology and the Religious Institution that I want to protect.

[grinner]

Originally posted by NYPinTA
See, the whole problem is just the word. Mahwage. A Bwessed event....

Edit: sorry I don't know how to spell a marriage spoken by someone with a speach impediment. no it isn't a word. It is an Religious Institution. There is a difference. The vast majority of people that I talk with about this issue... agree with me. There is a Religious Institution that should be seperate from the State Institution.

[fermicat]

Originally posted by grinner
wow... those are definitely the reason that I want to get married... for the tax benefits... [/sarcasm]


The Federal Government should NOT be offering Marriage licenses at all. What they should do is make everything Civil Unions... as that is what they are. It is a business contract. If you look at it that way... it would clean up the divorce proceedings. By making then more like Business Contracts... you would be able to set up out-clauses and other aspects. That is... a Partnership. A Partnership can be an expensive thing to get out of in Business... so treat it as a Business.

Then if you want your Church to offer a Wedding... you can have one. When a Minister officiates a wedding... he becomes, for the duration of the service, a government employee. When you have the 'Signing of the Marriage License'... that is all that is required. By changing the terminology to Civil Unions... what harm is there. Then you won't have Religion involved at all. No Government Marriage.

I think that marriage already is viewed as a legal partnership, which is why it is necessary to appear in front of a judge to dissolve it, regardless of whether or not you get your religion involved in your divorce (i.e. religious annulment). There is no current requirement to have any religious aspect to getting married - that is a voluntary choice. Some people get married in secular environments by a justice of the peace or other non-religious officiant, and they are just as married in the eyes of the government as the couple who have a church wedding by an ordained minister. And a church marriage performed without a marriage license from the state is not recognized by the government.

As for contracts, anyone who wants to can have a prenuptial agreement drafted. For those who choose not to, there are laws governing what happens in the event of a split.

Or is it that those that support gay marriage want to further erode any institution that they don't technically 'fit' into.

I don't see eroding the institution of marriage as the goal for the majority of proponents. The only people I hear who bring this up are the subgroup of opponents who think that letting gays get married will somehow damage the institution of marriage -- an opinion not shared by all. Most of the gays who are fighting so hard for this genuinely want to marry their life partner.

[Darth Buddha]

That solution makes the most sense, true, but I can't see either party being able to deliver it.

I see the current right in Congress as being too beholden to religious groups who want the Religious Institution inculcated as the law of the land, by Amendment if necessary.

I see the current left as too likely to just give in to gay marriage.

I see Marriage and Civil Union as separate but equal the only thing that could ever pass.. and I won't hold my breath on that count, I assure you!

Labored Mechanical Breathing in the Background

[BlackThorn]

So just take "marriage" off the name of the legal side of it, slap some other name on it (civil union or whatever), and allow all consenting couples the right to partake in one if they so choose.

Pity it'll never be this simple.

[grinner]

Originally posted by fermicat
I think that marriage already is viewed as a legal partnership, which is why it is necessary to appear in front of a judge to dissolve it, regardless of whether or not you get your religion involved in your divorce (i.e. religious annulment). There is no current requirement to have any religious aspect to getting married - that is a voluntary choice. Some people get married in secular environments by a justice of the peace or other non-religious officiant, and they are just as married in the eyes of the government as the couple who have a church wedding by an ordained minister. And a church marriage performed without a marriage license from the state is not recognized by the government.
If you look at the history of Marriage in the US... It was always a RELIGIOUS Institution first. The Federal Government used a Religious Institution and made it a Secular one with regards to Census and Tax purposes. In doing that... the government required that all Marriage Licenses had to be obtained from the government. Since the US at the time was still a heavily Religious Nation... there wasn't any problem with it. However, Marriage has always been a Religious Institution. There is No Minister anywhere in the US that would Officiate a Wedding that did not already have a Marriage License. If he were to do that... he would LOSE his the Authority to Perform ANY Marriage Ceremonies. The fact that a marriage in the Church isn't LEGAL until the Contract is Signed signifies this. That is why there is the Marriage Contract Signing Ceremony during a Church Wedding. It is why the Minister is require to say 'By the power invested in my by the State.....' when he announces the Married Couple.

My point is that Marriage is a Religious Institution... heck... It is the 'Sacrament of Marriage' in Catholic Tradition. A Holy Sacrament. For those that say that there should total Seperation of Church and State... but still support Marriage... is funny. IF they really Supported the Seperation of Church and State... they SHOULD be pushing for Civil Unions for all.

[DRD2001]

But some religions have no problem with homosexuality. They would love to perform marriage ceremonies for their patrons. We have several Christian churches here which support the gay and lesbian community.

[mfa96]

So does this mean that atheists can't be married since they aren't religious?

[grinner]

Originally posted by DRD2001
But some religions have no problem with homosexuality. They would love to perform marriage ceremonies for their patrons. We have several Christian churches here which support the gay and lesbian community. Not Religions... but Denominations. That is where it would get tricky. My Denomination would NOT perform Marriage Ceremonies. Then there is the Denominations that have been Hijacked by a minority interest...

But by making everyone get Civil Unions... would Solve the problem for the VAST majority of people.

As I said... I don't care if gays want to live together... whatever. My difficulty is the use of the Institution of Marriage.

[NYPinTA]

Originally posted by grinner
no it isn't a word. It is an Religious Institution. There is a difference. The vast majority of people that I talk with about this issue... agree with me. There is a Religious Institution that should be seperate from the State Institution.

marriage= religous institution.

The thing is, even if the state decides to recognize gay marriages, it does not mean any church has to. Seperation of church and state goes both ways.

My sister and her husband were married by the justice of the peace. They got a 'marriage' license. Does that mean the church has to recognize it? No. (And they wouldn't since my brother in law was divorced, but that is besides the point.)
It is the word marriage that raises the hackles. The word and all it implies. I probably should have said that in my first post.
So, in short, I think you and I agree on this, it is just my wording wasn't as clear.

[grinner]

Originally posted by mfa96
So does this mean that atheists can't be married since they aren't religious? As I said... Marriage was taken over by the Federal Government as a handy, premade institution for easy Tax and Census purposes. I would think that Atheist are being untrue to their true purpose if they do get married... as it is a Religious Institution first and foremost.

[stellar]

I agree with grinner.

Marriage is a sacred institution and has been for the life of this country. I believe this. Using that definition - State marriage, i.e. going to the courthouse with a marriage certificate and getting officiated after which the marriage certificate is signed, stamped and sent to the Clerk of Courts, is not marriage - it's a civil union.

The State cannot santify marriage because that would be endorsing religion. The State cannot sanctify anything. If a man and woman go to the Justice of the Peace, or to a Vegas Elvis Impersonator, or anyone who is licensed to perform marriage in the State, but is not recognized by any church - then they are not married but share a civil union.

That said, there is no legitimate reason to deny homosexuals the ability to join in a civil union. If and only if a church recognizes that union is it marriage. And since the government of the United States has no jurasdiction in matters of religion then no Constitutional Ammendment applying a religious legitimacy to State marriage is valid. To do so would cremate the real foundation of our civilization - The US Constitution.

:charge:

[fermicat]

Originally posted by grinner
My point is that Marriage is a Religious Institution... heck... It is the 'Sacrament of Marriage' in Catholic Tradition. A Holy Sacrament. For those that say that there should total Seperation of Church and State... but still support Marriage... is funny. IF they really Supported the Seperation of Church and State... they SHOULD be pushing for Civil Unions for all.

But marriage has become a social institution, not just a religious one. I never viewed marriage as a separation of church and state issue, since not all marriages are based on religious views. I figured the license requirement is there to insure that marriages are lawful (i.e. one does not marry their sibling, for example, and the bride and groom are of legal age of consent).

And when you say marriage is a religious institution - which religion are you speaking of? Christianity in any form is only ~2000 years old, and people were married before that time.

Thinking about the points you've made, I guess I wouldn't care if it were called a civil union, as long as it is clearly understood what it means and is the same for everybody. I am planning to marry my fiance because I love him and want to commit to him for life. We aren't doing it for any other reason.

[mfa96]

Could it be possible that in the time we live in marriage has evolved into something besides a religious institution?

[BlackThorn]

Technically, the meaning behind a marriage has already evolved over the last couple thousand years.

Unfortunately, the federal and most of the state governments don't recognize what's being referred to as a "civil union" here as the equal of what they call a "legal marriage." And the chances of convincing them to change the term they use on a bunch of paperwork would be incredibly slim.

[Darth Buddha]

Muddled more than evolved, methinks.

Separating the civil from the religious would take the ambiguity out of it.

This discussion is REALLY quite tame. I am impressed.

[stellar]

Originally posted by mfa96
Could it be possible that in the time we live in marriage has evolved into something besides a religious institution?

No, that's not possible.

[grinner]

I don't know if I am explaining this correctly... some seem to understand what I am saying... while others don't. The US WAS founded as a Christian Nation. It is only recently where the Christianity of the Nation has been attacked. If you don't believe this... you haven't studied much US History. When the Government took the Institution of Marriage and used it for governmental uses... It really didn't matter because the Country WAS PREDOMINATELY CHRISTIAN. I remember reading an article that said that as late as the 1970's that over 90% of ALL Marriages were PERFORMED in a Church. That is where Common-Law Weddings came from... those were originally intended for those that didn't want to be Married in a Church. It is only recently that there has been an Attack on ANYTHING dealing with the Religious (Christian) Nature of the US. Since Historically the US was a Christian Nation... it didn't hurt anything by having the Government sanction Marriage. But since there is a lot of people INSISTING on a Seperation of Church and State... the State should NOT be Sanctioning Marriage.

[Digger]

I like grinner's solution. Marriage as a purely religious institution, civil union as a purely secular institution, but with exactly the same legal standing . It works under the constitution. Sadly this solution makes too much sense and so will almost certainly never come to pass. Imagine if it did? Worst case scenario: some nitwit uses this to say "look, seperate but equal does work. Lets segragate the schools again."

Yes, I am in a very cynical mood today.

[grinner]

Originally posted by BlackThorn
Technically, the meaning behind a marriage has already evolved over the last couple thousand years.

If you look at any Religious Text... no matter the Religion... a Marriage is between Men and Women. There was no Same Sex Marriages in the Old Testament... the Koran... I have never seen ANY references in ANY religious book that discussed Gay Marriage.

[grinner]

Originally posted by Digger
I like grinner's solution. Marriage as a purely religious institution, civil union as a purely secular institution, but with exactly the same legal standing . It works under the constitution. Sadly this solution makes too much sense and so will almost certainly never come to pass.

Yes, I am in a very cynical mood today. It isn't really my solution... it is something that Libertarians have been pushing for, for a number of years.

[DRD2001]

But if marriage is defined as a union between man and woman, what is a woman and what is a man? Will we use the genetic XX or XY chromosomes, or will a transexual be allowed to get married. Or will they have to stick with a civil union? There are a lot of children who have been born physically different, and had a gender randomly assigned to them by the doctor. Sometimes the doctor is wrong. If the birth certificate says XY, will we have to do test to prove if they are XX. And who gets to marry the XXY.

[stellar]

The US was founded as a tax haven for the wealthy. The fact that the majority of the citizens of that country were (and still are) Christian does not mean that the US was founded as a Christian Nation.

Now I won't argue that many laws and practices were adopted from Christian teachings. But there is stipulation in the Constitution that says that the governing body of this nation cannot make laws endorsing any religion, or religion at all.

I am one who holds the constitution sacred (choice of words, unintentional). I believe in absolute separation of church and state, absolute freedom of speech (barring Fire in Theater scenario), and absolute right to keep and bear arms (barring conviction of a crime that stipulates revokation of that right as a penalty).

[BlackThorn]

Originally posted by grinner
If you look at any Religious Text... no matter the Religion... a Marriage is between Men and Women. There was no Same Sex Marriages in the Old Testament... the Koran... I have never seen ANY references in ANY religious book that discussed Gay Marriage.

Did I say anything about that evolution of marriage having anything to do with same-sex marriages? No, I did not.

I was talking about the principles behind most of the symbolism in marriage, the equality of the partnership in the resulting relationship. All that has changed over the years.

[grinner]

Originally posted by DRD2001
But if marriage is defined as a union between man and woman, what is a woman and what is a man? Will we use the genetic XX or XY chromosomes, or will a transexual be allowed to get married. Or will they have to stick with a civil union? There are a lot of children who have been born physically different, and had a gender randomly assigned to them by the doctor. Sometimes the doctor is wrong. If the birth certificate says XY, will we have to do test to prove if they are XX. And who gets to marry the XXY. ugh... No, Everyone would have CIVIL UNIONS. The Government would be out of the Business of Sanctioning Marriage. If you WANTED to take the extra step and have your union be termed a Marriage with regards to your Church... then fine. Otherwise all unions would be CIVIL UNIONS.

[NebariNookiee]

Originally posted by grinner
The US WAS founded as a Christian Nation. It is only recently where the Christianity of the Nation has been attacked. If you don't believe this... you haven't studied much US History. When the Government took the Institution of Marriage and used it for governmental uses... It really didn't matter because the Country WAS PREDOMINATELY CHRISTIAN. I remember reading an article that said that as late as the 1970's that over 90% of ALL Marriages were PERFORMED in a Church. That is where Common-Law Weddings came from... those were originally intended for those that didn't want to be Married in a Church. It is only recently that there has been an Attack on ANYTHING dealing with the Religious (Christian) Nature of the US. Since Historically the US was a Christian Nation... it didn't hurt anything by having the Government sanction Marriage. But since there is a lot of people INSISTING on a Seperation of Church and State... the State should NOT be Sanctioning Marriage.

The problem with this argument, grinner, is that most of the Founding Fathers were Freemason -- not Christian.

[grinner]

Originally posted by NebariNookiee
The problem with this argument, grinner, is that most of the Founding Fathers were Freemason -- not Christian. You can be Catholic and still be a FreeMason. You can be Episcopalian and be a FreeMason. Heck, there are a lot of Christian traditions in the FreeMasons. Now, many Protestant Denominations do not allow membership in Secret Societies...

So that really doesn't hold much water.

[Darth Buddha]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most of the Founding Fathers Protestants?

I could dig up the information in letters sent concurrently to the framing of the constitution written by Jefferson, Adams, and others... in which they make clear that THEY meant separation to run far deeper than revisionist historians claim nowadays.

However, there have been periods when that barrier was eroded. Prohibiton for one, and during the McCarthy era when people wanted to demonize Russia as being a "Godless" society (a bit over the top, but I'd buy spiritually starved).

I see the wisdom of the separation of church and state that allows those of different beliefs to live together more every year.

But it must cut both ways... there's plenty to be upset with in terms of governmental meddling in religion, too.

[grinner]

Most Protestants, other than Calvinist's, can join Secret Societies. Armenians, Lutherans, Wesleyans and some others don't have a problem with Secret Societies.

[NebariNookiee]

Okay -- point: let's look at this logically
How can there truly be such a thing as a separation of church and state when the very laws of the land are based on religious dogma? The people in this country need to just freaking stop and look at things. The reason it’s illegal for gays to get married is because of “moral trappings” taught by the church. If there is a separation between the laws governing the land and the doctrine followed by the church, then how can one influence the other? There is only one answer – it can’t. That in turn makes either the laws of the land or the laws of the church suspect. It's a paradox -- an oxymoronic problem.

[mfa96]

There is no mention of gay marriage in the bible- there is mention and practice of slavery, yet we don't practice it today.

When Kennedy was running for president they said a Catholic should not be president because he would be a puppet of the pope.

I am honestly curious about the whole attack on anything Christian. The only time I see and Christian group attacked is after they have tried to impose their view on someone. Now, this is just what I have seen- I am not trying to bait anyone or induce a flaming (though I have donned my asbestos boxers), I am just honestly looking for examples- I have seen this mentioned by more than one person in more than one thread.

[NebariNookiee]

I have nothing against those who practice the Catholic beliefs – my problem is with those in charge of the Catholic institution. I have a problem with any organization that worries more about its power than those that depend on their guidance. I also have a problem with an organization hiding child rapists away while turning a blind eye to the problem. These people should not have any power or control over anyone outside of their organization.

And for mfa96 -- the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. It's the reason Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed. I don't buy it -- but that's what it says.

I'll be back here tomorrow -- you kids play nice and don't do anything to get this thread locked.

[fermicat]

Originally posted by mfa96
I am honestly curious about the whole attack on anything Christian. The only time I see and Christian group attacked is after they have tried to impose their view on someone. Now, this is just what I have seen- I am not trying to bait anyone or induce a flaming (though I have donned my asbestos boxers), I am just honestly looking for examples- I have seen this mentioned by more than one person in more than one thread.

I will second your curiousity, mfa96. I have also noticed this theme coming up in multiple threads and have been curious about it. I am no longer active in any church, but for the first 20 years of my life I was quite involved with church. I don't remember feeling persecuted because of my beliefs during that time - which included all of high school and a few years of college.

[stellar]

Here's a couple of thoughts from founding fathers amongst others (I had to work that last quote in somewhere).

"Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. True friendship is a plant of slow growth, and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity before it is entitled to the appellation." - George Washington

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison

"The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties is not true. They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body." - John Adams

"Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none." - Benjamin Franklin

"Whatever you are, be a good one." - Abraham Lincoln

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one." - Thomas Jefferson

"Thomas Jefferson? That's just my baby's daddy." - Sally Hemmings

[BillFrugge]

This is a very active thread... I leave for a couple of hours, and have that many more hours of catching up. :)

Originally posted by Darth Buddha
And I actually share some of your suspicions regarding motives to want the status of "marriage" -- some, not all, of the gay community I know really want to "stick it to" or "get in the face" of conservatives.

That sounds a lot like what happened to the boy scouts. The fact that they've just about decimated the scouts isn't going to win many allies.

NN asked about Freemasons. Freemasonary isn't a religion or even at odds with the church. IIRC, Freemasons used to travel as masons; it was the masonary that enabled them to hide their religion from prosecution. I wouldn't give much thought to the wild tales said about them today. I'm sure someone with more knowledge on this will chime in. :whip:

I, too, am impressed with this thread. Instead of vague statements, we're actually quoting laws and Constitution. Instead of flames, we've got questions. And people are bringing answers in a civil forum. Neat! Interesting and educational at the same time! Thanks for all of the information so far; I'm leaning on the fence right now and trying to distance my emotion from my reasoning.

[scrape_medic]

two things

Evidence of marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as old as 5000 years, has been discovered in scotland

long before modern religions even existed...(by that include, christian, jewish, muslim etc.)

If marriage is a religious institution, then wich religion is claiming it as their own, for instance if it is christian, then does that mean a muslim marriage is not valid.

[grinner]

Christain Persecution... okay...

How about the fact that there cannot be a Nativity Scene at Public Schools, but the Menora and the Star of Islam can be used.

How about the way that in many peoples eyes... Christians are regarded as extremists.. ie. the mythical 'Religious Right'. And when mentioned in News Reports... are looked down upon or called 'Hate-mongers'

How about a Christian can't say anything that might be considered imflamitory to Muslims... but the same isn't a problem when Muslims say something about Christianity.

Or the fact that the Bible is considered 'Hate-Speech' by the Canadian Government.

Then there are the Governments of many countries that Active persecute Christians. China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, India... all these governments have policies against Christianity.

It isn't only Jews that are persecuted in some parts of the world... There were more Christians murdered or disappeared in China, than Jews killed homicide bombings in Isreal last year.

[zap]

Privatize Marriage:
A simple solution to the gay-marriage debate
By David Boaz

IN THE DEBATE over whether to legalize gay marriage, both sides are missing the point. Why should the government be in the business of decreeing who can and cannot be married? Proponents of gay marriage see it as a civil-rights issue. Opponents see it as another example of minority "rights" being imposed on the majority culture. But why should anyone have — or need to have — state sanction for a private relationship? As governments around the world contemplate the privatization of everything from electricity to Social Security, why not privatize that most personal and intimate of institutions, marriage?

"Privatizing" marriage can mean two slightly different things. One is to take the state completely out of it. If couples want to cement their relationship with a ceremony or ritual, they are free to do so. Religious institutions are free to sanction such relationships under any rules they choose. A second meaning of "privatizing" marriage is to treat it like any other contract: The state may be called upon to enforce it, but the parties define the terms. When children or large sums of money are involved, an enforceable contract spelling out the parties' respective rights and obligations is probably advisable. But the existence and details of such an agreement should be up to the parties.

And privatizing marriage would, incidentally, solve the gay-marriage problem. It would put gay relationships on the same footing as straight ones, without implying official government sanction. No one's private life would have official government sanction — which is how it should be.


Andrew Sullivan, one of the leading advocates of gay marriage, writes, "Marriage is a formal, public institution that only the government can grant." But the history of marriage and the state is more complicated than modern debaters imagine, as one of its scholars, Lawrence Stone, writes: "In the early Middle Ages all that marriage implied in the eyes of the laity seems to have been a private contract between two families. ... For those without property, it was a private contract between two individuals, enforced by the community sense of what was right." By the 16th century the formally witnessed contract, called the "spousals," was usually followed by the proclamation of the banns three times in church, but the spousals itself was a legally binding contract.

Legal Regulation of Marriage

Only with the Earl of Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1754 did marriage in England come to be regulated by law. In the New England colonies, marriages were performed by justices of the peace or other magistrates from the beginning. But even then common-law unions were valid.

In the 20th century, however, government has intruded upon the marriage contract, among many others. Each state has tended to promulgate a standard, one-size-fits-all formula. Then, in the past generation, legislatures and courts have started unilaterally changing the terms of the marriage contract. Between 1969 and 1985 all the states provided for no-fault divorce. The new arrangements applied not just to couples embarking on matrimony but also to couples who had married under an earlier set of rules. Many people felt a sense of liberation; the changes allowed them to get out of unpleasant marriages without the often contrived allegations of fault previously required for divorce. But some people were hurt by the new rules, especially women who had understood marriage as a partnership in which one partner would earn money and the other would forsake a career in order to specialize in homemaking.


Privatization of religion — better known as the separation of church and state — was our founders' prescription for avoiding Europe's religious wars. Americans may think each other headed for hell, but we keep our religious views at the level of private proselytizing and don't fight to impose one religion by force of law. Other social conflicts can likewise be depoliticized and somewhat defused if we keep them out of the realm of government. If all arts funding were private (as 99 percent of it already is), for instance, we wouldn't have members of Congress debating Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs or the film The Watermelon Woman.

Privatizing Marriage

So why not privatize marriage? Make it a private contract between two individuals. If they wanted to contract for a traditional breadwinner/homemaker setup, with specified rules for property and alimony in the event of divorce, they could do so. Less traditional couples could keep their assets separate and agree to share specified expenses. Those with assets to protect could sign prenuptial agreements that courts would respect. Marriage contracts could be as individually tailored as other contracts are in our diverse capitalist world. For those who wanted a standard one-size-fits-all contract, that would still be easy to obtain. Wal-Mart could sell books of marriage forms next to the standard rental forms. Couples would then be spared the surprise discovery that outsiders had changed their contract without warning. Individual churches, synagogues, and temples could make their own rules about which marriages they would bless.

And what of gay marriage? Privatization of the institution would allow gay people to marry the way other people do: individually, privately, contractually, with whatever ceremony they might choose in the presence of family, friends, or God. Gay people are already holding such ceremonies, of course, but their contracts are not always recognized by the courts and do not qualify them for the 1049 federal laws that the General Accounting Office says recognize marital status. Under a privatized system of marriage, courts and government agencies would recognize any couple's contract — or, better yet, eliminate whatever government-created distinction turned on whether a person was married or not.

Marriage is an important institution. The modern mistake is to think that important things must be planned, sponsored, reviewed, or licensed by the government. The two sides in the debate over gay marriage share an assumption that is essentially collectivist. Instead of accepting either view, let's get the government out of marriage and allow individuals to make their own marriage contracts, as befits a secular, individualist republic at the dawn of the information age.

[grinner]

how does the government get its money with Privatization?

[stellar]

Originally posted by grinner
Christain Persecution... okay...

How about the fact that there cannot be a Nativity Scene at Public Schools, but the Menora and the Star of Islam can be used.

This is a terrible double standard. Get rid of religous symbols and strict matters of faith in curricula.

How about the way that in many peoples eyes... Christians are regarded as extremists.. ie. the mythical 'Religious Right'. And when mentioned in News Reports... are looked down upon or called 'Hate-mongers'

I've found this to be true in that Christians in particular are singled out as being holier than thou, with less than average intelligence. This may stem from educated people who may have been raised Christian but for what ever reason are no longer and hold some degree of disdain. People who make fun of Christians are either Christians themselves, albeit less involved with their own faith, or Christians who have given up the faith alltogether.

The religious right is not a myth. I define the religious right as those who would transform the republic one beholden to Chritianity. A sort of Christian Talliban for the US. They do exist. I don't categorize every religous conservative as being in the religous right. But it's not like they're unicorns or anything... I've seen them - usually on TV.

How about a Christian can't say anything that might be considered imflamitory to Muslims... but the same isn't a problem when Muslims say something about Christianity.

Inflamatory in what way? Things like Muhhamad was a pedophile and a polygamist and is going to Hell? I've not heard similar rantings about Jesus. Americans are taught tolerance as a cultural point. The majority of Muslim nations are not taught this. Our way is better there's no reason we should lower ourselves to their level.

Or the fact that the Bible is considered 'Hate-Speech' by the Canadian Government.

Our way is better, there's no reason we should lower ourselves to their level.

Then there are the Governments of many countries that Active persecute Christians. China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, India... all these governments have policies against Christianity.

The word "civilization" is still something to be strived for in some of these countries. Our way is better, there's no reason we should lower ourselves to their level.

It isn't only Jews that are persecuted in some parts of the world... There were more Christians murdered or disappeared in China, than Jews killed homicide bombings in Isreal last year.

I prefer suicide bomber because suicide is punishable by damnation in Islam and is irredeemable.

"It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: He who killed himself with steel (weapon) would be the eternal denizen of the Fire of Hell and he would have that weapon in his hand and would be thrusting that in his stomach for ever and ever, he who drank poison and killed himself would sip that in the Fire of Hell where he is doomed for ever and ever; and he who killed himself by falling from (the top of) a mountain would constantly fall in the Fire of Hell and would live there for ever and ever." ( Sahih Muslim, Chapter 48, Book 1, Number 0199).

These "people" get to spend eternity blowing themselves up over and over and over again.

The media seeks sensational stories, dissapearance of Christians is not sensational enough. This is the tragic truth.

[DRD2001]

For those who want to see marriage preserved as bond between a man and a woman, santified by their religion, I have a question. I understand that gay couples want the same rights and the use of the same term, with or without religious sanctioning.

So how do you feel about the term "wed". Do you think homosexuals should be allowed to wed at a wedding ceremony, whether it is a religious or not? My point is that everyone is using the word marriage. Civil union has also been tossed around. But I've heard nothing about the term "wed". I know this is samantics, but people do seem to be getting hung up over what term they want used.

[Antrobus]

It appears to me that marriage took on grand religious overtones in this country after the Depression. (By "grand" I mean the huge Church wedding). Both pairs of my grandparents were married in the vicarage by a minister with the minister's wife and one other person bearing witness. There were no grand Church weddings - and no honeymoons either. No wedding gowns or tuxs ! They wore their best clothes!

By the time my parents married all that had changed and the big Church wedding was in vogue and it seems to have remained that way ever since.

I know that in the colonial days most of the people were married in the home by a traveling minister. There are many good records for genealogists to find in a minister's diary. I've seen them. They say something like,"went to brother so and so's and married his daughter".

So, I think that the marriage ceremony part of marriage has been hyped in modern times and that prior to the Depression was a rather casual event. No one felt they had to make thier commitments before a whole group of people! It seems that marriage has always been based in religion, but used to be more of a private ceremony between two people and the God of their faith. Marriage (IMO) has become too big for its own good. People make too much out the ceremonial part of it.

While I favor marriage for Gays and Lesbians, I'm just not sold on the whole marriage thing on a personal level. It seems like much ado about nothing. Make your commitments to each other, sign the papers and be done with it!!

[grinner]

why toss terms like that around. I heard a gay couple talking about their Mates. In a sexual context... that is kind of Imposible... because by definition mating results in off-spring.

Wed isn't a Religious term/Institution... whereas Marriage is. But then there is Wedlock and all that. You are arguing semantics whereas I am saying that Marriage should NOT be used by the Government... as that is a Religious Institution.

[Antrobus]

Marriage should NOT be used by the Government... as that is a Religious Institution.

But who made it that? Who made marriage a religious institution?

[grinner]

Who... the Majority of all the Religions in the world.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism... all have Marriage as an Institution. It is only in Modern Times where the Government has gotten involved in Marriage.

Heck... in the Middle Ages, The Church performed marriages to spite some Secular Rulers who didn't want their Serfs to Marry.

[Nicola]

Originally posted by grinner
Christain Persecution... okay...

Or the fact that the Bible is considered 'Hate-Speech' by the Canadian Government.


As a Canadian, I am kinda interested in that statement, especially since I think you have vastly oversimplified an issue of more than passing interest. And also this is a sweeping statement assuming facts that are not in evidence.

The Canadian parliament is due to discuss bill c-250 which outlaws hate speech, and includes a provision protecting gay people from hate speech. This has resulted in a burst of sudden and furious activity by the religious in Canada, who are alarmed that perhaps reading hateful passages from the Bible might suddenly be outlawed, this in spite of the fact that the framers of the law have offered to make an exemption allowing anyone to speak hatefully, such as a minister or priest or preacher, provided that they can back up that hateful remark with a choice verse from the Bible. Making an exemption for the hatred of the Bible and giving ministers the free right to promote hatred and inequality seems like a giant loop hole and a real generous offer, but this has not been enough to satisfy the religious types in Canada, who are now lobbying hard to defeat the whole hate speech law, since apparently they are worried that some judge might decide that perhaps a Bible quote is not a sufficent fig leaf and try to nail some 'sincere Christian'.

http://www.awitness.org/journal/hate_speech_gay_bill_c250.html

There are many passages in the bible that I find problematic, and I believe do many other Canadians. However, if you do your research you will find that if individuals qualify certain statements with a quote from the bible they get a free pass.

The Criminal Code of Canada: Hate Propaganda: Section 318 & 319

Who can be convicted under Section 319?

If it can be shown that the speech was so abusive that it was likely to incite listeners or readers into violent action against an identifiable group, and if the the speech was made in a public place, then a person could be convicted.

If the speech promoted hatred against an identifiable group, but was not likely to incite a listener to violence, then a person could still be convicted. However there are many safeguards that could give that person immunity. A person could not be convicted if: The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.

If the person can establish that the statements made are true.
If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would exempt clergypersons from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.

If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.

If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.

I always find that indepth investigation of an inflamatory issue usually reveals a far more complex situation than the initial knee jerk reaction implies.

[Antrobus]

So, its just a made up ceremony? Would I be correct in assuming that if one were to take the government involvement out?

[grinner]

no it isn't a 'made up' ceremony. It is a Religious Ceremony that Government used for political Reasons. Henry VIII comes to mind... He wanted out of his marriage so that he could have a Male Heir and the Church wouldn't let him. So he Created his own form of Christianity. Seems to me that it is a Religious Institution back then...

[mfa96]

Originally posted by grinner
Christain Persecution... okay...

How about the fact that there cannot be a Nativity Scene at Public Schools, but the Menora and the Star of Islam can be used.

How about the way that in many peoples eyes... Christians are regarded as extremists.. ie. the mythical 'Religious Right'. And when mentioned in News Reports... are looked down upon or called 'Hate-mongers'

How about a Christian can't say anything that might be considered imflamitory to Muslims... but the same isn't a problem when Muslims say something about Christianity.

Or the fact that the Bible is considered 'Hate-Speech' by the Canadian Government.

Then there are the Governments of many countries that Active persecute Christians. China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, India... all these governments have policies against Christianity.

It isn't only Jews that are persecuted in some parts of the world... There were more Christians murdered or disappeared in China, than Jews killed homicide bombings in Isreal last year.

My take on this (for what it's worth)

The schools- wherever those schools are- seem to have double standards (schools down here in Florida show all faiths at holiday time).

People say mean things. I have heard people of different faiths say many derogatory things about people of other faiths- from Muslim to Christian to Jew.

As for the countries you are talking about, aren't they all religious governments (except China- they are an atheiist country if I remember correctly (and please correct me if I am wrong) and they persecute their own more than any other). And is it the practice of Christianity that is banned in these countries, or trying to convert others? The difference being that the former is based on existence and the latter based upon action you know to be against the law- whehter that law is just or not by our western standards.

Is it the New Testament alone that is considered hate speech in Canada? If so, that would qualify for me as Christian persecution.

I am sorry, but this doesn't seem like Christian persecution to me- seems like Christians are being treated like the rest of us- some good, some bad.

Of course we may have different definitions of persecution...

[Nicola]

Originally posted by mfa96
Is it the New Testament alone that is considered hate speech in Canada? If so, that would qualify for me as Christian persecution.

No, it is not. And please note... the bible is not considered hate speech in Canada.

Please reference my previous post.

[mfa96]

Thanks Nicola- you must have posted while I was posting...

[waltersgirl]

mfa and scape_medic are on a roll today. interesting comments by both.

Or is it that those that support gay marriage want to further erode any institution that they don't technically 'fit' into.

i was married. now i'm not. my ex is a fabulous human being. he wished to no longer be married. i honored his decision. no one has the right to legislate or pass judgement on my life, certainly not the government.

i support gay marriage. it has no bearing on my life. i don't "fit" into its interested parties. i support it because the government has no right to dictate the private lives of individuals. if two people want to commit themselves to each other for the rest of their lives, legally they should have access to the same rights and priviledges as any other couple that currently enjoys said rights.

as to whether it's morally correct or not, that's not my call. judgement is God's job, and the job's already taken. God is perfectly capable of handling His own business. He doesn't need our help.

[BillFrugge]

Originally posted by Antrobus
So, I think that the marriage ceremony part of marriage has been hyped in modern times and that prior to the Depression was a rather casual event. No one felt they had to make thier commitments before a whole group of people! It seems that marriage has always been based in religion, but used to be more of a private ceremony between two people and the God of their faith. Marriage (IMO) has become too big for its own good. People make too much out the ceremonial part of it.

I think the ceremony is unnecessary. But, then again, I'm not a bride. It is her day, and she gets a lot of attention. Oh yeah, and her mom likes to go overboard...

At the simplest level, the presiding minister (or whomever) asks the bride and groom if they want to be married. He asks the family of the bride who gives consent for her to be married. And that's it. The Best Man and Maid of Honor are witnesses and sign legal papers notarizing that the marriage did, indeed, take place. In a religious context, the two have sworn an oath before God that they choose to be married.

The question has been asked before, but I'll rephrase it to fit with the current line of thought. If marriage isn't a religious institution, then why bother with it? If there is no God, then why wed? Just club her and bring her into your cave. (Sorry, don't mean to offend anyone by that -- it's just my weird humour...)

(Of course, in those older days, the bride's family offered a goat or some other livestock as compensation to the groom...)

[waltersgirl]

The question has been asked before, but I'll rephrase it to fit with the current line of thought. If marriage isn't a religious institution, then why bother with it? If there is no God, then why wed?

the entire question of gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. nothing. nada. it is about access to legal rights and priviledges that straight couples are granted by the government.

there are two separate discussions happening here, and in the topic at large. and that's arguably the largest part of the problem.

on edit...actually, i think there are 3 discussions...the third being semantics, which is being used to support personal beliefs. accurately/technically "correct" or not, the universally accepted term is "marriage".

Just club her and bring her into your cave. (Sorry, don't mean to offend anyone by that -- it's just my weird humour...)

:lol here's hoping she makes that club fit into that itty bitty tiny hole.

[vacantlook]

I heard a gay couple talking about their Mates. In a sexual context... that is kind of Imposible... because by definition mating results in off-spring.

And here I thought a "mate" was one of a matched pair. I guess I need to learn to never again ask, "Where is the mate to this sock?" since socks don't produce off-spring.

[waltersgirl]

"Where is the mate to this sock?" since socks don't produce off-spring.

lord knows i wish they would. maybe then i'd stop losing them in the dryer. :rolleyes:

[Ammit]

I disagree. Marriage is "made up." Completely! You can call it a religious institution all you like, but it's still a concept that people made up for whatever reason. It started religiously, sure, because society's morals were based on religion. Marriage today, civilly, is a legal and social dependence between two people. Just like today we have the threat of jail to prevent crime instead of demons, we have civil marriage instead of religious. Ergo, marriage can be defined however society wants it defined. And personally, I don't care what people want to do in the privacy of their own home.

As far as the word "mate" is concerned:
Main Entry: [3]mate
Etymology: Middle English, probably from Middle Low German mAt; akin to Old English gemetta guest at one's table, mete food —more at MEAT
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : ASSOCIATE, COMPANION
3 : one of a pair: as a : either member of a couple and especially a married couple b : either member of a breeding pair of animals c : either of two matched objects

There doesn't necessarily have to be offspring--otherwise, opposite-sexed couples couldn't use "mate" if they were infertile or on birth control. Especially considering the etymology of the word; I don't think people necessarily "mated" with their table-guests. :D

[vacantlook]

I don't think people necessarily "mated" with their table-guests.

Yeah, I looked up the eytmology of the word too but opted to not post it in my response above because it just seemed so odd that the word could go from something originally having to do with an individual eating at the same table as another to a love-partner.

I guess it just goes to show that words do indeed change in meaning over time.

[DRD2001]

Perhaps the concept of marriage developed in prehistoric times because human beings tend to be jealous and possessive. To solidify their claim on another person, they would turn to the highest most inaccessable authority they knew, which would be the god/gods/goddess that they used to explain nature and the world around them. And lets not forget that people love the idea of rituals and ceremonies, from carrying a bride across the threshold to kindergarden graduations. These rituals are based on their religion, personal superstitions, an opportunity to "feel special" and at other times they are based ancient religions that are now deemed mythology. Knock on wood. :)

[stellar]

Monogomy predates religion. This is a survival technique. If a a cavewoman has a baby (a person who is mostly useless for hunting, gathering, or protecting istelf - the baby not the woman; see Clan of the Cavebear) then a man would be beneficial for survival. Evolutionary evidence for this is that a human female, unlike many other animals, is not limited to mating to certain small times of he year - this encourages monogomous partnerships.

[waltersgirl]

Monogomy predates religion. as does ritual and custom. they would have learned the behavior as a positive result of survival behavior. the custom and ritual, and then eventually the religion, would come after.

[vacantlook]

Monogomy predates religion.

Indeed it does, just ask the penguins and the geese!

[scrape_medic]

yeah religion, that's a messy business.

anyhoo, I have lots of mates, but then I am from london, and all my good friends are "mates".

And what does marriage mean....well form a purely pagan, non-deity believing point of view....

Marriage is when two people stand together in front of all that know them and declare a long term, supportive, commitement to one another with or without the possibilities of future "developments".

By that definition you can define, male/female, male/male, female/female, company/company realationships, a relationship of two minds or any union between two things which is publically declared and has the potential to be fulfilling.

It does not exclude any religion, creed, or race.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines marriage as a "legally united for the purpose of living together and 'usually' procreating lawful offspring" [F (marier, to marry]

I think from relfecting on this it is the lawful offspring that caused the problem in the first place. How do you know who gets to have the share of the inheritance when you die...how do you know who has a say in the treatment of you children......how do you know who has a right, a connection, a claim.......you know because you share the same surname, and it is recorded in the parish records or the town hall.

Marriage has some very strong legal implications over here in regards especially to the children..a man cannot have parental responsibility for his biological child automatically bestowed upon him, unless, he was married to the mother at the time of conception, at the time of the birth, or at any point after. If he never marry's the mother, he has to apply for parental responsibilities either by formal written agreement with the mother or applying through the courts.

And it mattered to Herny the Eighth because he wanted to be sure that his son would be legally entitiled to the throne.....cause I am damn sure there are a few illegal heirs that never made it into the history books. (Our royalty have been at it for years!)

And you may have noticed by now that I haven't even mentioned "Love". Why? because love is what you feel on the inside and is considered subjective, whereas marriage is objective, what everyone else sees on the outside. Love may bring you together, but marriage is how you let everyone else know for sure.

[Darth Buddha]

Originally posted by DRD2001
Perhaps the concept of marriage developed in prehistoric times because human beings tend to be jealous and possessive.

Not jealous or possessive in the petty sense... more like "to allow males to be certain of the paternity of their children."

The male commits to a female, invests a large amount of his resources in her, and it turns out to NOT be his kid because some interloper came in, seduced his mate, and then headed for the hills?

Females generally try to procure a male provider/protector in all primates, whether on a one to one basis or in a harem... think baboons. However, they will sometimes engage in one night stands with sufficiently novel, impressive, or "successful" interlopers -- without of course keying the male whose resources she is as to the fact that the kid is not hers!

Males also follow those two mating strategies, procreation within committed relationship (because it is has been conditioned into males by female reproductive best interest before we even began to talk). And the non-committed "sowing of wild oats" strategy. Mr. Committed to one woman might be Mr. Wild Oat to everybody else.

Actually, not all that different today. It is all about the paternity of one's heirs... for genetic reasons.

Adding force of law to that concern in terms of marriage, and in some times and places adding force of law to the punishment of adulterry, is all aimed at favoring the committed approach, and not the one-night stand, for procreation.

Love your analysis, scrape_medic, the level of scholarship in this thread is really impressive.

[fermicat]

Originally posted by BillFrugge
I think the ceremony is unnecessary. But, then again, I'm not a bride. It is her day, and she gets a lot of attention. Oh yeah, and her mom likes to go overboard...

At the simplest level, the presiding minister (or whomever) asks the bride and groom if they want to be married. He asks the family of the bride who gives consent for her to be married. And that's it. The Best Man and Maid of Honor are witnesses and sign legal papers notarizing that the marriage did, indeed, take place. In a religious context, the two have sworn an oath before God that they choose to be married.

I think the "wedding industry" is responsible for a lot of the expectations of grandeur in recent years. The level of complexity involved in wedding planning is staggering -- as are the costs. I read in Bankrate.com recently that the average cost of an American wedding is $22,000!!! That is a serious amount of cash.

[BillFrugge]

Originally posted by fermicat
I think the "wedding industry" is responsible for a lot of the expectations of grandeur in recent years. The level of complexity involved in wedding planning is staggering -- as are the costs. I read in Bankrate.com recently that the average cost of an American wedding is $22,000!!! That is a serious amount of cash.

Yup. It's a big business. Wedding dresses are expensive, and everyone feels compelled to go all out. But, after all, a bride only has one first marriage.

OTOH, my dad always said that ladders are cheap. :lol:

[stellar]

Originally posted by BillFrugge
Yup. It's a big business. Wedding dresses are expensive, and everyone feels compelled to go all out.

You just said a mouthful about the disproportionate nature of the American Wedding. Wedding Dress - $5,000. Tuxedo - $90 for two days.

[fermicat]

I don't know anyone who spent anything close to $22K, fancy dress or not. [And $90 is still pretty steep just to borrow a tux for a couple of days.]

[BillFrugge]

I know some people in a nearby town that run a massage parlor. (It is a respectable establishment! Keep your mind out of the gutter...) They actually do a good business. They sell a package for the bride and her bride's maids that amounts to a total care package. It includes massages, hairstyles, pedicures, and so on. This has caught on, and is quite popular.

And expensive? I've been to a few that really amounted to a lot of cash. Nobody special, just friends. One wedding was a dual ceremony (Evangelical and B'Hai) where the bride's maid's dresses were gifted and each cost a fortune. The bride's dress was very elegant. An embassy was rented for the B'Hai ceremony and reception... Entertainment was hired. Iranians in Limos... Even the rehearsal was a big event. I don't know the full cost, but I suspect it was far more than the $22K mentioned previously. They did save some money since the Pastor was the bride's uncle.

As I stated earlier, the ceremony is for the bride and is often the biggest day in her life. (Apart from when she finally manages to dump the louse she ended up with...) There is a lot of emotion involved, and family travel long distances to attend. It is her parents that foot the bill for it as a form of dowry. I suspect all of the crying is for more than one reason.

(This is getting kind of weird... :lol: )

[NYPinTA]

Originally posted by fermicat
I don't know anyone who spent anything close to $22K, fancy dress or not. [And $90 is still pretty steep just to borrow a tux for a couple of days.]

I think the 90 bucks covers steam cleaning in case previous tenents went 'comando' ;)

[hmissesh]

Take more than steam for commando--how about some majorly nasty chemicals....

Thats just my opinion...cutie ;)

[NYPinTA]

Cutie? Oh, you mean me!! :ewink: :D

[stellar]

Originally posted by NYPinTA
I think the 90 bucks covers steam cleaning in case previous tenents went 'comando' ;)

Never go commando in rented clothing. That's Stellar's words to live by #43.

[NebariNookiee]

Originally posted by stellar
Never go commando in rented clothing. That's Stellar's words to live by #43.
Ever think about publishing a "Stellar's Words to Live By" paperback? I smell a best seller!

[NYPinTA]

A best seller, from stellar... :lol

[BillFrugge]

Oh did I ever get the wrong idea... I read commando, but I couldn't decide what that meant... :lol:

I though it was some strange reference to a nervous bodily reaction on behalf of the groom! :rollin: That would certainly mean a good cleaning...

Yeah, I suspect a lot of guys want to play James Bond.

[Zantar]

Just want to add a few things.

1. Waltersgirl: I really liked all of your posts. Very well thought out, and presented. So good show:).

2. Marriage, i think, was at one point a religious ceremony. However, the power of marriage has been left to the state in U.S. As such any conception of what marriage was religiously should not matter. As a state they should be concerned with protecting the wellbeing of their citizens. They need to do this by not allowing discrimination in legal status. Gay couples who want to be married should have all these same legal rights, and if the state doesnt give it to them it isnt really protecting its citizens. How can you tell the people not to discriminate agaisnt homosexauls if the state wont even officially recognize them?

3. marriages are far to expensive. Damn consumerism....

[stellar]

Originally posted by NYPinTA
A best seller, from stellar... :lol

Copyright 2004.

[NYPinTA]

Can I get an autographed copy? 1st Edition even?

[stellar]

Originally posted by NYPinTA
Can I get an autographed copy? 1st Edition even?

Yes.

For a modest fee.

[waltersgirl]

1. Waltersgirl: I really liked all of your posts. Very well thought out, and presented. So good show

hey, thanks. ;)

there's too little love in the world as it is. why would anyone want to legislate it away.

[pilot_lethina]

Yes, San Francisco "broke state law." Yes, a more appropriate response would have been to challenge that law in the courts, but that wouldn't have brought this issue to the fore like it has. And, let's face it GW State of the union address had a lot to do with instigating San Francisco's rebuttle!

That being said:

What's really discouraging is the fact that the ERA still hasn't passed and may fade into obscurity - but Dubya think's it more important to start a new amendment for this nonsense???

The "Sanctity" of Marriage was lost the day King Henry VIII formed the Church of England so he could get a divorce, and Gays had nothing to do with that!

PL

[NebariNookiee]

Originally posted by pilot_lethina
The "Sanctity" of Marriage was lost the day King Henry VIII formed the Church of England so he could get a divorce
The "Sanctity" of marriage was lost the day it was considered an "Institution"