I'm going to wade into deep water here, so...

[WCGreen]

Marriage is a custom of social stability set up by religious leaders far before Christians came to be...

It was all about control, putting the fear of god behind the ceremony, so to speak, into folks so that those same people wouldn't fool around with others mates...

It also helped pave the way from a nomadic lifestyle to a more community orientated life...

(Personally I think it was so the scrawny guys could get laid as well as the strong virile type, but I digress...)

That worked out really well now didn't it...

But still, it was a sacred vow later sanctioned and embraced by civil authorities...

That is why so many people of the religious persuasion are against Gay Marriage...

They feel it is an affront to their religious beliefs...

As for me, it really doesn't matter what I think because I'm not running for office, but the people who are have to consider that very large portion of the population that feel very strongly about their religious beliefs...

As for masking bigots, well, religion has always been the last refuge of scoundrels, so to speak...

Ask those who discovered cover for slavery in the very comfy bosom of Abraham...

BTW, I was for Civil Unions before but now I think anyone who wants to can enter into the world of marital bliss...

It's sooooo much fun...

[Warpy]

1. It's all so men can own their children.

Paleolinguistics has found that the word for "father" in most languages is a relatively recent development and derives from a root meaning "owner."

Before that, the words denoting nuclear families were variations of "mother" and "mother's brother."

[WCGreen]

4. Interesting...

Did you know the Catholic Church allowed, well didn't care would be a better way to put it, the clergy to marry until the question of children claiming rights to church property became an issue...

[Trajan]

2. While your points as to the religious foundation of marriage ....

... will be accepted without question (for the sake of argument), isnt it true that marriage customs also provide a level of peace and security on a strictly social level as well ? ....... Some of the oldest laws codified: The Code of Hammurabi (Predates the Old Testament), included a number of marriage laws ..... and I am pretty sure they had nothing to do with religion whatsoever ....

[WCGreen]

3. Everything back then had to do with religion...

I'm talking about the origins of marriage...

Pre-history, if you will...

IT was a way to stabilize a budding community...

[maddiejoan]

5. Shall we clamp down on Athiest Marriages then?

[WCGreen]

10. I am for decoupling marriage from the civil portion and make all people

who wish to join as one do so in a civil agreement that supersedes a religious ceremony...

If they want to be sanctioned by "god", so be it...

[hedgehog]

6. Admit it - when was the first time you ever heard the term gay marriage or

single sex marriage? What was your initial reaction?

We have seen such a sea change in societal attitudes toward women and minorities that most people alive today in this country can only imagine what it was like just 30 or 40 years ago. Example: on career day in 1971, the Buffalo Police Department sent a rep to my all girls high school. She was the only female police officer, and her job was to man the dispatch station.

I don't know if we will end up issuing marriage licenses to everybody or just recognizing civil unions for everyone, but the change will come.

[WCGreen]

8. I agree...

Hell, my first politcal awakening came when I shoke Carl Stoke's hand at a campiagn even in 1967 when he was running to be the first Black Mayor of a major city...

I was nine...

[zalinda]

7. You missed the part of marriage about

the declaration of who is the father of the kids. Actually, in "cave man times", it wasn't uncommon for the woman to mate with the strongest male, and then a weaker male would become her companion, protector, provider and help mate with the children.

Marriage was about the passing on of property. Many societies did not allow women to be property owners, so they would find a man that they admired and would "wed" their daughter to that man to pass on their property. This is why dowries became such a custom. And, yes, the wife was property too, but her real value was what she brought to the marriage. This is how many families became wealthy and stayed wealthy. The churches promoted marriage because many of these properties fell into the hands of the clergy. In the beginning priests were allowed to marry, and many became quite wealthy. I think this may have been one of the reasons priests were later restricted from marrying.

Marriage now has such religious trappings with it, that it is hard to separate it from religion. After all, religion has claimed it for over 1000 years. The word marriage is the sticking point for many people when it comes to gay marriage, not the act itself. Go figure!

zalinda

[WCGreen]

9. It's been around for more than 1000...

Ancient Greeks and Romans and Egyptians and even those pesky Babylonians all recognized some form of marriage...

Those property rights were important to the people who had property...

Religion, as is the case now, didn't apply to the rich and famously indiscreet...

But for the rest of the people who actually believe in the Old Testament and other ancient traditions sanctioned by Gods from here to eternity, all saw quickly enough that people hopping from mud hut to mud hut perhaps weren't as productive as those who stayed put...

[polichick]

11. Religion is the most effective means of control there is...

...and also the favorite excuse for the horrors of humanity ~ the last refuge of scoundrels indeed!

[opiate69]

12. Anthropologically speaking...

The claim that "Marriage is a custom of social stability set up by religious leaders" is false. Well, actually, it may very well be true in some cultures. Since virtually every society in the world has institutions which would seem to fall under the definition of marriage, any attempt to point to one starting point is an excercise in futility. In any event, in our modern American society, the religious component of marriage is absolutely secondary to the governmental component. To whit, a couple can go to a church, and have a marriage ceremony presided over by the religious authority, but if the paperwork which is required by the state is not filed, that couple is legally married. If that same couple goes to the local courthouse, files the paperwork, pays the fees and has a ceremony presided over by a judge (or other authorized State official), while never settng foot inside a church, that couple is indeed married by any and all legal and societal measures.
While we're on the subject, here's a great article written by a Professor of Anthropology from Washington State University which, in my opinion, pretty much makes the definitive case for same-sex marriage.
http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/0405if-comm4.htm

[WCGreen]

13. That is true...

But, since religion was the "civil" authority in those early societies, it's not a good comparison to hold up "modern" American law against ancient customs...

You basically said what I mean in that the religious ceremony should be decoupled from the civil action of entering into what is essentially a partnership agreement...

[opiate69]

15. Which early societies? There's literally thousands to choose from.

Surely not every single one was theocratic. In any case, the decoupling you're calling for is already codified in our society. Now it's just a matter of getting the "great unwashed" to realize it.

[WCGreen]

16. There in lies the rub...

And so the controversy...

As far as the societies are concerned, ones that developed in the west...

It's just a little expansion on my Anthro 101 class I took back in 1979...

[silverlib]

14. I've had a problem with "marriage" for a long time...

I had one fall apart in the early 80's. I spent more on attorneys than I spent on marriage counselors. I swore I would never do it again - that I could have my own kind of "marriage" without the legal document if I were to meet the right person. So, fast forward to the 90's. I met the almost perfect guy. We were "married"/committed without the paper. We were and are happy, But unfortunately his son was killed three weeks prior to his daughter' birth. Her mother, who was an estranged girlfriend of the sons, could not take care of her. After she was dropped off for six months, my husband filed for custody. We were told that to have joint custody, we would have to get married, and the court wanted joint custody in case anything happened to my "husband." This took place in a common law state. It seemed like custody/adoption was the only thing in the state that do not meld with common law. I walked into my bosses office at the age of 40 and explained that I needed a day off cause I had to get married!

I never understood fight for equal-marriage until I had to think of the fact that I lived with common law rights on all other issues, so I was missing the point of the fight - the right to inherit and the right to gain custody of children, the right to visit a loved one in the hospital and make lifetime decisions for loved ones. It took me a long time.

I agree that there should be another alternative to marriage on paper for everyone - equally - that would let us decide who gets our stuff when we pass on - who makes life and financial decisions for us when we can't, etc.

[WCGreen]

17. That is what has to be done...

[calteacherguy]

18. The government should not issue marriage licenses for anyone, only civil union certificates.

All current marriage licenses should be replaced with civil union certificates. If someone wants a marriage license, they can ask their church.

[opiate69]

19. So then, since my wife and I were "married" at the courthouse

with no church involved, what would our status be? "Civilly united" as opposed to "married"? Would I still be considered her "husband"? How does the church get to lay claim to the word "marriage"?

[Maven]

20. And the IRS should give out candy canes instead of collecting taxes.

Let's put this dodge of an answer to rest already.

Even if you could change countless laws to effect such a pointless change in terminology, most straight, married couples would never want to "downgrade" their marriages to civil unions, which is in truth what "civil union" means in the public mind: something less than marriage.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

21. K&R!

You've got a great dialogue going on here...

:patriot: