This confuses me, probably because I know almost nothing about religion. Marriage was originally only a church thing and had nothing to do with the government?
Now why didn’t I think of this before, that makes it so simple! Thank you for showing me the light. Any women want to make me straight so I can just forget all this SSM crap?
I think you’ve missed the point of the post (with a definition for H&R’s actually needing to ask, “what does ‘marriage itself’ mean?”) that you’ve responded to and my subsequent explanation of that post.
Re-reading my posts in this thread would show you and I are actually in agreement.
Just so the SSM marriage opponents will know they have lost, in this thread and the larger battle, like the abolition, women’s suffrage, integration and miscegenation opponents before them, I give you this quote (stolen from The New Yorker mail page), which inspired phrases in speeches by Lincoln, King and Obama and of which surely the more learned of the debaters here are aware:
I’m not clear on how tied to the state marriage was originally. However, well before the “separation of church and state” was written into our constitution marriages were a part of religious tradition. I also don’t know whether back in the early American days you could get married just by filling out some paperwork at the town office. I’m guessing not.
Currently, they are in theory completely separate from the church because you don’t need to participate in any religious ceremony to get married. But since many people do have a religious ceremony, and because both the religious and secular ceremony is called “marriage,” religion thinks it can dictate rules about it.
It’s like if the state suddenly gave people benefits for eating a cookie every week, and they called the eating of the cookie “communion.” You wouldn’t need to go visit a church to get these cookies, but many people would go to churches for them. In theory it would be totally separate from the Catholic ceremony of communion, but you bet your ass the Catholics would be trying to dictate who could and couldn’t eat the cookies, even though they’d be completely separate from the ones that are in fact made out of Jesus bits.
Okay, first of all, you suck at analogies. Other than that, I agree with you. The people have voted to exclude homosexuals from marriage. It’s a stupid, bigoted, hateful, and deeply ignorant position. But it’s an entirely legal position. Which is why you will not find any posts from me arguing that gay marriage ought to be instituted from the bench. It should be instituted from the voting booth. There are a couple of challenges being mounted against Prop. 8 in California right now. I do not expect them to pass, and I think that they should not pass. The principle of self-governance includes the right to govern badly. The people of California have decided that they want to live under a bad law. The remedy for this is to convince them to vote for a better law, not to look for an outside agency to slap them on the hand like wayward children.
I will note that I do not disagree with the California Supreme Court’s initial decision legalizing gay marriage in California. The law banning gay marriage was in clear violation of a higher law mandating equal treatment. That was an entirely just ruling, even though it went against the popular opinion of the people of the state. The remedy sought by those bastards behind Prop. 8 was legally (although, obviously, not morally) correct: they altered the law at the same level as the mandate for equal rights. If we want to fix this state, we’ve got to change the law back at the same level.
Sorry, I wasn’t arguing with you, just riffing off your post.
Thus, I happily will not tolerate yours.
When you said that some people shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Yes, sorry if I’m mistaken, but I’d guess most of those who vote in favour of SSM wvoted for Obama.
Indeed.
At least as far as the Christian church was concerned, marriage was originally a completely secular issue. Wikipedia says
So how about this: Let’s return “marriage” to its traditional civil/secular role, and call all religious unions “Holy Matrimony” (or as applicable for the religion of your choice).
You’re not going to tolerate his intolerance of intolerance? Isn’t that likea triple negative or something?
We’re harshing his hate, dude…
It sounds like anyone who wanted to consider themselves married could go ahead and consider themselves married.
I’m not sure when the government started requiring a license, but I’d bet it was around the time divorce and settling of accounts started to become more common. That, and preventing whites from marrying minorities. 1929 in the year by which every state had marriage license laws. The concept of the government giving you permission to be married really hasn’t been around that long.
Some argue it’s immoral for the government to presume so much authority over marriage, but I’m sure all those divorce lawyers have well financed lobbyists. 
So even in early America there was no real freedom of, or from, religion? Way to waste a long trip across the Atlantic…
That was in reference to the fact that far too many people aren’t smart enough to understand the issues, or can’t be bothered to read up on them before they vote. I guess you could make a case for my being intolerant of those folks, but it’s hardly the same as denying a large segment of the public their civil rights just because you don’t like them.
No idea since I have no idea what Obama’s stand on SSM is. I personally wouldn’t have voted for him because he appears to be in bed with the HSUS.
The Humane Society of the United States? 
Yes. I have only heard this from several places and haven’t looked into myself, so I don’t know this for a fact.
May I ask (do I want to?) why “being in bed” with the Humane Society is a bad thing? Or am I being whooshed?
They (Humane Society) seem to have liked how he filled out one of their legistlative surveys, and they went on to endorse him.
There is a big difference between the HSUS and your local humane society. In a nutshell, the HSUS is an arm of PETA.
Still not a big enough mark against him to make me vote for Palin