**
By denying me the right to marry the person I love, just as straights marry those they love (with reasonable age of consent and familial limitations) is ridiculing my relationship. Somehow, my relationship doesn’t deserve the stablility and benefits imbued by marriage. Why? Bigotry, plain and simple.
Oh. My. God.
Watching this board tear you apart is going to be fun.
Wasn’t there another bitter, hateful fundamentalist on the board about a year ago? His-something? The more things change…
Or, the law prohibits men from marrying people that it allows women to marry, and is blatantly sexist. Works equally well both ways, which makes me think I’m missing something.
I do think it worth noting that in ancient Egypt – with its three thousand or so years of recorded history – considered marriage to be obviously a matter of state concern, and marriages were administered civilly. (As were divorces, and both spouses had the right to sue for divorce. Egypt wasn’t a bad place to be if you were a woman in the ancient world; beat the hell out of Greece.)
I don’t know what the marriage laws were like in the basin of the Tigris and Euphrates, but I think that’s a pretty good cite for “Prove marriage hasn’t always been a god thing!” nonetheless.
And incidentally, speaking as a polygamist who can’t marry her partners legally, I really wish people would stop using me as a bogeyman to beat up the gays. (I’d like to not be a bogeyman in the first place, but if I’m stuck with the role I’d like to protest being used for vile agendas.)
Being married and not gay myself, I just can’t understand why anyone would be against marriage for gays - it goes against self-interest.
Marriage has an economic side to it. The rules of family law are designed to limit the damage inflicted on society from the break-up of the partnership that is marriage - by providing for equalization of family property (the bugbear of my lesbian study-buddy friend) and by spousal support.
Without this system, the likelihood of the “diadvantaged” partner requiring social assistance is increased. Which must be paid out of tax revenues, increasing the tax burden for everyone - gay or not.
Now my blushing bride and I went down to the Cook County Court House last month and gave the county $10(plus $25 for the marriage lisence). A judge then gave a little non-religious speech asking if we would be there for each other and presto! I’m a married man. Or would someone beg to differ, since God wasn’t involved? (He’d always make me feel self consious, doing a better job at everything than me)
Personally I see polygamy as a messy situation for spousal rights and passing on of the estate, but other than that, knock yourself out.
And on the historical perspective, Egyuptians were getting married before the old testament was written…
I don’t think so. Marriage has been a contract since the beginning and not necessarily religious. The attached show that in Ancient Egypt and Assyria, among others, marriage was not religious, but mostly a civil affair, that grants rights to the parties. Additionally, the Establishment Clause clearly disavows the notion of “Holy Matrimony” or a religious wedding from having any higher standing than any other, and all marriages, validly performed confer state enforceable civil rights. These rights include access to property, inheritance, alimony, etc.
As to whether homosexuality is a sin, that is irrelevant when discussing civil rights, although as a Catholic all I can say is that the Church considers it so, and I belive most Protestant, Jewish and Islamic clerics do as well. I believe it is the right of any of those religions to refuse to marry anyone that they belive to contravene their norms, as such I can not be wed by the Church of England if I insist on the supremacy of the the Pope, etc. Again, that has no bearing on whether the state should recognize rights to people who express an interest to form a stable relationship.
Justifying legal statutes or limitations based on religion is contrary to how western democracies work. After this long rant, and slight hijack, I say yes it is inconsistent to deny someone their rights because you don’t feel comfortable with the result. It is naive and irrelevant whether you like the group or not, defending people’s rights does not mean you like or dislike them, it means you believe human rights are given to all human beings.
Assyria
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Contracts/marri01.html
Contract of Mibtahiah’s third marriage oath[c]
Text: Sayce-Cowley, G; Cowley, 15. Date: about 440 B.C.
On the 2[5]th of Tishri, that is the 6th day of the month Epiphi,[4] [year . . . of] Kin[g Artaxerx]es, said Ashor b. [Seho], [5] builder to the king, to Mah[seiah, A]ramean of Syene, of the detachment of Varizata, as follows: I have [co]me to your house that you might give me your daughter Mipht(ah)iah in marriage. She is my wife and I am her husband from this day for ever. I have given you as the bride-price (5) of your daughter Miphtahiah (a sum of) 5 shekels, royal weight. It has been received by you and your heart is content there with,[6] (Lines 6-I6, Miphtahiah’s dowry.) (I7) Should Ashor die tomorrow or an[othe]r day having no child, male or female, by his wife Mi[phtah]iah, Miphtahiah shall be entitled to the house, chattels and all worldly goods of Ashor. (20) Should Miphtahiah die tomorrow or (another) day having no child, male or female, by her husband Ashor, Ashor shall inherit her property and chattels. Should [Miph]tahiah, tomorrow [or] another [d]ay stand up in a congregation and say, I divorce my husband Ashor, the price of divorce shall be upon her head: she shall sit by the balance and weigh out to [As]hor a sum of 7 shekels 2 R.[7] But all that which she has brought in (25) with her she shall take out, shred and thread, and go whither she will, without suit or process. Should Ashor tomorrow or another day stand up in a congregation and say, I divorce my [wif]e Miphtahiah, [he shall] forfeit her bride-price, and all that she has brought in with her she shall take out, shred and thread, on one day at one stroke, and shall go whither she will, without suit or process. And [whoever] arises against Miphtahiah (30) to drive her away from the house, possessions, and chattels of Ashor shall give her the sum of 20 karash,[8] and the law of this deed shall [ . . . ] for her. And I shall have no right to say I have another wife besides Mipht(ah)iah or other children besides any Miphtahiah may bear to me. If I say I have chi[ldren] and wife other than Miphtiah and her children, I shall give to Miphtahiah a su[m] of 20 karash, royal weight. (35) Neither shall I have the right to [wre]st my property and chattels from Miph[tah]iah. If I take them away from her (erasure), I shall give to Miphtahiah [a sum of] 20 karash, royal weight. [This deed] was written by Nathan b. Ananiah [at the dictation of Ashor]. Witnesses: (signatures).
Others
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Contracts/marri02.html
Egypt
For all that religion played in ancient Egyptian life, there was one place it had no role at all: the Egyptian marriage. There wasn’t even a civil ceremony
depocali, that was a great post. Concise, informative, and cogent. I hope you stick around the boards a while; I very much look forward to your continuing contribution.
Thirteen posts since registering in May 1999. Wow. You don’t say much. But when you do, it is something to behold.
Nothing to add, except that Darph was the one who got banned.
Curious, that.
Not really curious at all. Did you happen to follow Darph into his Pit thread? He was being gratuitously offensive, to the point where he could quite plausibly be fitted for a bridge. Darph self-engineered his own banning, believe me…his spewings in this thread were only a part of it. And yes, for the SOB remark, spectrum should at least have been warned, but it’s tough to see a penlight when it’s right beside a Klieg.