It’s sad how many people don’t get that separate but equal isn’t really equal. How about if you gave gays the label “marriage” and heterosexual unions were re-christened “civil partnership” — would that be equally okay?
“Always” ended by 1836 when civil marriages were allowed in England and Wales.
Which came first religion or government?
The earlier forms of government were theocracies. Was there some pre-nup agreement that when religion and government parted ways religion maintained sole custody of marriage?
Secular people have as much claim to marriage as any religion.
Okay, people, some history here.
From the perspective of the English, Welsh, Scots, etc.:
Their earliest political leaders were kings. Kings did have a sacred role in pre-Christian Indo-European styles of paganism, but they were not priests and their governments were not theocracies. They did, however, have marriage as an institution. Long before the coming of the Christian church.
From the perspective of Christianity, the church only gradually took on the blessing of marriages, and eventually you get the Council of Trent in the 16th century, which says “Whosoever contracts marriage, otherwise than in the presence of the Parish Priest and of two or three witnesses, contracts it invalidly.” People seem to be backdating this to the beginning of time, but it’s in the section called “DECREE ON THE REFORMATION OF MARRIAGE”.
Of course they do - but because of common sense, not because of history.
I don’t think it matters to be honest. Its really just a word. Trademarked by the church if you will.
If it didn’t matter, then derogatory terms like “civil partnership” wouldn’t exist.
I forgot to add this: And another reason it matters is that not all countries that allow same-sex marriage recognize “civil partnerships.” Even if Britain chooses to see “civil partnerships” as the equivalent of actual marriage, the mere existence of the division between marriage and “civil partnership” tells some other countries that “civil partnerships” are really something less (which is logical, since if they were equal than they would be called the same thing).
Why does it have to be derogatory?
Garbage; “the church” doesn’t get to declare who can and can’t get married, especially since there is no such thing as “the church”. There are many churches, not all of which agree with that particular bit of bigotry. The bigoted churches have no right to impose their bigotry on other churches or the nonreligious.
Because that’s why the term exists in the first place. Terms like “civil partnership” and “civil union” were created as a insults to rub it in the faces of homosexuals that unlike such shining lights as, say, serial killers they are unworthy of marriage.
-According to most historians, no culture has had a recored of gay marriage. However almost all, if not all cultures, have a recored of heterosexual marriage. Although hommosexuality is well accounted for in many, many cultures, nobody ever thought it could be dfined as marriage.
-Thus I offer the following question. Please link to a culture that has or has a had a history of same sex marriage. Ritual marriage for festival/sacrifical periods doesn’t count. I’m putting that caveat there because Nepal and Tibet have some pretty out there traditions, as well as being one of the few polyandrous cultures in history.
I think your historians ought to talk to some anthropologists. There are plenty of cultures who have recognized same-sex relationships, though in many cases this involves reclassifying one of two men as a woman or as a third-gender person (the famous institution of berdache). The fact that there gay identity is a modern one (though non-standard gender orientation and homosexual sex are both ancient) means that you won’t find any exact parallels. But there’s plenty of evidence for male-male or female-female behaviour in human cultures if you look.
And Emmalouise, it’s not “just a word.” I’ve been on all sides of this in the same relationship. My husband is from the UK, I grew up in the US, and we now live in Canada where we have married. We’ve lived together in all three countries and I can assure you that it makes a big difference.
It’s hard to explain without getting too detailed or personal. I was very moved when a bunch of elderly, churchgoing, UK-born acquaintances bought us a cake and threw us a surprise reception. Would that have happened if the churches here hadn’t been forced to accept gay marriage? I don’t know, but I think not.
What churches were “forced” to accept gay marriage, and what was the enforcement mechanism?
Sorry, that was a bit of shorthand there. What I meant was that churches and churchgoers were forced to accept the situation, the existence of gay marriage as legitimate marriage nationwide, in that they were not allowed a loophole. I didn’t state and I didn’t mean to imply that they were forced to perform gay marriages or adjust their definition of the sacrament of marriage.
Then I am totally baffled by your comment about the surprise reception. Nothing whatsoever changed from the church’s POV, except perhaps that they considered the rest of society to be even more, er, sinful?.. damned?.. than before. So these folk were actually acting in spite of their church, not because of it.
They and their church live in a society which requires them to accept gay people as equals. I think this attitude spills over. I don’t really know: I don’t feel comfortably asking the 88-year-old man and his 86-year-old wife (the ones who lead the church services) why they and their friends are so willing to accept us.
No, they’re not. That’s a nonsensical assertion. That’s like suggesting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forced the end of racism.
At best it protects people from the worst excesses of discrimination in the workplace and participation in some spheres of society, most notably in economic and political activities.
Their church has accepted nothing, and is not forced to accept anything. Whatever grace and kindness you received from these folks resulted from their own decisions, and their own changes of heart, in spite of their church.
Show me something that suggests any differently.
I can’t. If you’re not convinced, you’re not convinced. I think you’re a bit confused, because you’re taking “accept” as “change one’s heart and mind” rather than “deal with as a legal fact”, but unless I actually go interviewing people on what they thought in 2004 and what they think in 2012, I can’t get the information that would satisfy you. And it’s possible that I’m wrong.
But a church doesn’t have to deal with it as a legal fact – unless they operate some side business that has to change some policy to conform to non-discrimination law. And in those cases, the church can go merrily along hating anyone it wants, within the confines of the church and the members who agree with it.
Right now Catholic Charities in Illinois is involved in multi-party lawsuits with the state child protective services. The state recently changed the laws regarding adoption to stop discrimination against same-sex couples, and the CC operate a bunch of foster homes and adoption agencies. They refuse to comply with the law, so the state is cancelling all their contracts and pulling all the state foster children (more than a thousand) out of CC homes.
Right now, besides opposing the DCFS order to yank the kids as being too disruptive for the children, they are also lobbying heavily for an amendment that would provide a religious exemption. Failing that, it is possible that CC will spin off a new institution that will comply with the law, and it is possible they will also just get out of the business.
Whatever the outcome, the Catholic Church will not alter its beliefs, practices, or policies regarding SSM one iota. Give them another two or three hundred years to think about it, and maybe they’ll make some changes.
One of the factors you may not understand is that unlike the US, gays and lesbians are the equivalent of a protected class in Canada. Another factor is that when the government says discrimination is illegal, it gives a boost to the forces of change in the culture as a whole. There was a recent court case here where a Mennonite-run Bed-and-Breakfast, operated out of the couple’s home, refused service to a gay couple. They mentioned that homosexuality was against their religion, and that the business was in the home; they (the innkeepers) still lost, on the grounds that while free to hold religious beliefs, they could not spill over into their business.
I’m not sure how a similar case would have played out in the States. I imagine it would vary by state.