C.W. Nevius of SFGate.com has a really good article on the uproar over gay marriages and how they supposedly threaten to undermine the “traditional definition of marriage” in this country. President Bush is quoted as saying “Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society,” and yet if you take a good look at the history of marriage it’s clear that such serverances have been many and varied throughout history.
Nevius points out that back during the early history of America (1700-1800s) a married woman gave up many of the “rights” she enjoyed as a single person upon taking her vows. She could no longer own property or sign contracts and any money earned outside of the home had to be turned over to her husband. On the plus side, she didn’t have to pay taxes. In many ways a married woman was the property of her husband and this didn’t change until the the latter-half of the 19th Century, but change it did. Mixed race marriages weren’t legal in any state until California changed their laws in 1948 and it was 19 years more before the Supreme Court made it nation-wide. In many states it was still illegal for mixed race couples to marry until the year I was born (1967), but change it did. More interesting still is what you get when you look closely at just what the Bible suggests about marriage:
Marriage’s lineage a bit convoluted
“It is really much more complex in religious perspective than you might think,’’ says Tolbert, the George Atkinson Professor for Biblical Studies at the Pacific School of Religion. “What the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) suggests as a general model for marriage is polygamy. You look at someone like Solomon who had 200 wives and 600-and-some concubines. Or Abraham, who had his first child by his wife’s slave. It sounds as if it was quite normal.’‘
Tolbert, who is also the executive director for the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry, points out that marriage didn’t even become a sacrament of the church “until the 12th century. For the first 1,200 years (A.D.) in Europe there were civil unions by town or village government.’‘
Nor does the New Testament offer much help. In fact, by some selective readings it sounds as if the Bible has mixed views of marriage. As Tolbert says, Jesus says very little about marriage, and both he and Paul were single men. And Paul, at least, recommended chastity.
“Marriage is not a sin,’’ says Paul in First Corinthians, “but it is better to be unmarried.’‘
“The Bible is an incredibly important sacred icon in our culture,’’ says Tolbert. “But I just think a lot of people don’t read it.’‘
That not many people read the Bible they supposedly follow is obvious. I issued a challenge awhile back for anyone to list a single valid reason that wasn’t religious in nature as to why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry and never got anyone to take me up on that challenge. That challenge still stands.
Don: the “State” has hoped to “simplify” the baby making process
Somehow I don’t think the baby making process needs simplification.
I reckon I could still do it with my eyes closed.
I’m about as open minded as YOU want
Shit that sounded good there for a moment until …
GAY means butt fucking and woman-to-woman enjoyment. HELL, I am a man; I can prove it, so why should I NOT eliminate the competition? The word marriage carries with it innuendo, and that is the contested point.
Ah-ha – you’ve got some sever hang-ups there, Don.
Are we seeing what you’re trying to say here?
You don’t want your meaning of the word ‘marriage’ sullied by people who want all the ease of automatic civil rights and social benefits of marriage except the baby-making possibilities.
So you would rule out from marriage all those people who didn’t want to do any more baby-making like my father’s 2nd marriage and my 2nd brother’s 3rd marriage.
(I just added up my four siblings’ marriages - nine. )
You aren’t open-minded Don – sure you aren’t as closed-minded as some bigots but …
To me ‘open-minded’ carries a fair bit of unconditionality
Have you ever taken The Political Compass™ test?
Try it out and see where you rate – I don’t give a fuck if you tell us or not.
My results are in my profile:
Economic Left/Right: - 6.88;
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: - 4.77.
I think I’ll do it again.
Oh good – I may have grown a little:
Economic Left/Right: -7.50;
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13
My partner and I just paid over $2000 each for a will, powers of attorneys, and some other documents. Included in those other documents should have been an AHCD. That allowed you visitation privileges.
Don, you can go off on a tangent like nobody’s business. Still, I’m having great difficulty figuring out the points you’re trying to make in your entries. Maybe you could condense your thoughts and worry about being a great writer later.
I can’t help but feel you’ve got some wisdom to impart.
Sorry to exacerbate your headache, Consi, but I couldn’t resist tackling this:
Don: Best to stay to a civil contract over marriage: easer to get out of, the rules are made clear, can be easily enforced, the division of property and other benefits are agreed to without state involvement, no oath of commitment, and the break up leaves little to no hurt feelings. Stay to a civil contract, you will be better off as “marriage” is very ambiguous.
This does not address the fact that there are many gays and lesbians who want the right of marriage, not merely the right to civil unions. You may think that the difference is trivial or irrelevant, but there are many who would strongly disagree with you.
You’ve made some very odd comments in this thread, some that border on the incoherent and and highly closed-minded, but I can’t argue with this (however off-color it may be):
What this country needs for a president is a gay black woman of Mexican decent with slant eyes and is a Muslim by culture but an atheist by choice.
If you had a signed limited power of attorney, stating under what conditions you are to observe and comfort, advice and monitor, your principle…
I’m not an attorney, but such a document can be used in your situation, and, if possible, notify the director of the hospital before the situation occurs.
We have limited powers of attorneys that cover medical situations. The necessity of his surgery is what caused us to see a lawyer to get these papers. The hospital staff were made aware of these documents and a copy was placed in his records. Why should I also have to notify the hospital DIRECTOR about such a document? He should simply have to say that I am his husband or partner, just like straight married couples can.
To deny a loving and trusted friend’s comfort in a stressful situation is PURE arrogance beyond any human understanding.
I was not there as simply “a loving and trusted friend” (although we are). Don’t you get it? Our relationship is as deep and as committed as any married straight couple.
On another note, some of the other patients assume that we are brothers or something and are confused when they see us kiss or hold hands. If we were a straight couple (married or not) nobody would think anything of our affection toward one another.
… eventually the state will give way to same sex marriage, OR come up with a different word that grants all the same rights.
That “different word” thing is a problem. The term “marriage” is a loaded word and using a different word for gay marriage infers that gays are still not able to get “married”. The best thing may be to simply do away with the word “marriage” at the civil legal level and replace it with a term that is used for both straight and gay couples. Of course, churches could call their couple joining ceremony anything they want to call it; they might want to call it a “marriage”, or they could even call it “Pelfing” if they wished.
“Sue the Stupid Evil Bastards!” It makes you feel better, right? Of course I’m right, stand for every right that you have and do not give an inch.I have no need to sue because I was able to bypass their rules by simply lying. My point is that I should not have to lie nor should I have to jump through legal hoops just to be able to do what straight married couples are allowed to do - without having to lie or threatening to sue.
In hospitals it is not uncommon for family members to exhibit affection, such as hand holding, hugging, and kissing in order to comfort each other. We were not making out, we were comforting each other. I would have to be blind to not notice the reaction from other patients and visitors. The ward staff have been supportive, and I know that there are gay nurses in the hospital.
I know about straight marriage as I was married for several years and have two teenage sons.
Well I just think differently. If a person says to me, you can take this pile cash or a heart full of pride, I will take the cash. If a person says here is a bundle of rights, or you can take a label. I will take the bundle rights.
We certainly are very different.
… people vomit labels all over the place, and if you are trying to “un-load” the English language of innuendos you will NEVER succeed.I am not trying to do anything to the English language, I was speaking about your hypothetical LAW (that I had heard others also mention) that would reserve the word ‘marriage’ to refer only to straight unions. I have absolutely no problem with the word ‘marriage’, my problem would be if LAWS are made where straight unions are called “marriages” and a different word (and possibly different law) is used for gay unions.
A great example of gay unions not being equal to straight marriages is in Britain, where gay unions are called “Civil Partnerships”. In Britain, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and “Civil Partnerships” are not the equal of “marriage”. Britain also does not recognize gay marriages performed in other countries.
Canada is an example of how it is correctly done, the law makes no distinction between straight and gay marriages.
Don; You certainly are very correct that we think differently; whatever.
Don:
I’m not an attorney
…I’m just talking is all. That has been glaringly apparent for some time.
An apropos old saw has many variations going back to the Bible. The gist of it was captured in modern language best by Mike Dikta: If you’re not that smart keep your mouth shut because the worst thing you could do is to open your mouth and confirm it.
Included in those other documents should have been an AHCD. That allowed you visitation privileges.
The documents included an AHCD, a copy of which had been put into his records when he was admitted before surgery. Our family physician (who knows that we are partners) also has copies of our AHCDs. Our family physician was not involved in the surgery.
The documents included an AHCDThen there was no reason to lie.
“The documents included an AHCD”
Then there was no reason to lie.At that point it was much easier to allow them to continue their belief that I was his brother rather than correcting their belief and potentially causing a confrontation that would cause my partner even greater stress. Yes, we might legally be in the right, but we can’t afford to pay the lawyer any more money. Also, we are in Virginia, where sodomy laws are still on the books (and I think that it is still illegal to sell alcohol to a homosexual).
sodomy laws are still on the books
Even in Tassie they’ve repealed the sodomy laws.
‘Even in Tassie’? - there are various jokes about the backwardness of Tasmanians (I grew up there) including two-headed relatives caused by inter-breeding and the one about, what’s the definition of foreplay in Tassie? Are you awake mum?
AmeriKa - the land of the free. That’s a joke too, right?
Even in Tassie they’ve repealed the sodomy laws.
Although the US Supreme court recently ruled that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, this does not mean that state sodomy laws are repealed. There also is no guarantee that past Supreme Court decisions will hold forever. On Tuesday, South Dakota voters will vote whether to uphold a law passed by the legislature that bans all abortions except to save a pregnant women’s life, which is deliberately in defiance of the Roe v. Wade decision.
Just to make notice that the first comment on this page, posted under the nick/name “Roan”, is actually an extract from an article by Paul Lutus that can be found at http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/symbols.html
Maybe Roan IS Paul Lutus .. otherwise .. it’s nace to state the true origin of our remarks.
Loved your prespectives on the subject