# What is Marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124 "2004-02-25T16:33:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![msklystron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/43a26b/32.png) [@msklystron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msklystron)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/81 "2004-03-03T17:47:23Z")
> [@Degrance](#): > > An interesting sociological question but what is your point in raising it in this context? If does fit with Wrenchslinger’s question: what is marriage? However, behind that question was another: should civil marriages be issued for specified periods of time, say, six or seven years, at which time the marriage may be renewed or not… ? ---
**Author:** ![msklystron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/43a26b/32.png) [@msklystron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msklystron)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/82 "2004-03-03T20:09:41Z")
> [@AZCowboy](#): > > Or perhaps the idealistic marriage you reference (“Ozzie and Harriet-style”) was never reflective of reality, but only in fantasy. And the choices now available (and generally acceptable and often exercise) have strengthen the marriages that endure. Back in the day, if John was a wife-beating, cheating louse, Jane would have felt enormous pressure to stay in the marriage. The kids would learn those role models from the parents. Was society better off? What I was trying to say, rather badly, was that monogamy is a worthwhile form of relationship between loving adults. I didn’t take the time to point out the many religious and cultural pressures that distorted the notion of monogamous unions in the past. For instance, the priest telling the beaten wife to go back to her husband and obey. Monogamous unions improved in some ways since the sixities while suffering or failing to improve in others. I disagree with the moral minority who are trying to hang on to their Ozzie and Harriet definition of marriage. I also disagree with Bush’s plan to ban gay/ lesbian marriages. And although I find it odd, it doesn’t bother me that a small number of couples may choose to invite another adult or two into their relationship. If it’s between consenting adults, no one is harmed and it doesn’t cost me anything, it’s none of my business. > [@](#): > > Boy, I was right with you up to your last sentence. Is there something about non-monogamy that implies transitory commitment? Can’t a couple be committed to live their life together, in sickness and in health, to honesty and integrity, without vowing monogamy? Did I imply that? I didn’t mean to. I was asked to join a committed long-term relationship with a man who wanted me to seek men outside the relationship. It was not my cup of tea and I said no. We are still friends. It’s a shame that our ideals for a relationship clash. A few months later, I was asked to participate in a casual short term way to the same sort of thing by another man I was seeing casually. To which I also said no. (I’m a real party pooper!) Anyway it should be pretty clear to you that I grasp the nuances… So as I said above, yes, long-term commitment can occur between more than two adults or between two adults who wish to step out or whatever. I wrote that last sentence without explaining the reasoning behind it all. Sorry about the lazy writing. I was thinking of civil marriage contracts with set times for renewal or dissolution. Vows would be renewed at the end of a specified date. It sounds horrid, but it may work for some couples. Those who marry young, as I did, or those who must travel a great deal for work, movie stars etc. might wish to choose this option. ---
**Author:** ![msklystron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/43a26b/32.png) [@msklystron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msklystron)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/83 "2004-03-03T20:14:17Z")
kellyM, A light just went on in my head. You are transgendered? If so, my confusion is over. I agree that transgendered individuals do have a tough time in many ways that could be addressed with some open-mindedness in society and the law. ---
**Author:** ![lee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lee/32/7455_2.png) [@lee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lee)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/84 "2004-03-04T02:37:41Z")
> [@msklystron](#): > > kellyM, > > A light just went on in my head. You are transgendered? > > If so, my confusion is over. I agree that transgendered individuals do have a tough time in many ways that could be addressed with some open-mindedness in society and the law. KellyM is transsexual. I am female and bisexual. I gave birth to my daughter the natural way, just as I conceived her, nothing so unusual about that. No, we have not made a public declaration. There is a felony involved in doing so. ---
**Author:** ![msklystron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/43a26b/32.png) [@msklystron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msklystron)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/85 "2004-03-04T03:44:53Z")
> [@lee](#): > > KellyM is transsexual. I am female and bisexual. I gave birth to my daughter the natural way, just as I conceived her, nothing so unusual about that. > > No, we have not made a public declaration. There is a felony involved in doing so. Well, it all makes sense now. I didn’t ask if you made a public declaration. Felony? Not in Canada, unless it involves falsifying birth documents. Or being married to two people at once. The latter is rarely enforced but could lead to problems in a will or other legal matters where marital status is relevant. Your saying you wanted a child conceived in love got me to thinking. Raised with love is more important than conceived in love. However your child’s conception gave two individuals who may not have otherwise become parents the chance to be parents. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenchslinger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/94ad74/32.png) [@Wrenchslinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenchslinger)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/86 "2004-03-04T05:57:01Z")
> [@lee](#): > > No, we have not made a public declaration. There is a felony involved in doing so. I asked the question. Even if you were to hold a small ceremony in front of friends and family whose discretion you could trust? (By the way, if even answering could get you in trouble, then tell me, and I’ll drop the line of questioning.) The reason I ask is that I feel that publically stating your committment is also a very important element of marriage. And separate of the monogamy/polygamy discussion, I wonder whether you might feel similarly. When my wife and I were married, the officiant made the point of telling everyone who was there that they weren’t just passive witnesses. They were charged with the responsibilty to “keep and eye on us” as it were. To offer help, support, and encouragement. I think that this is very important. Given the legal repurcussions you might face should you do so, I’m certainly not about to tell you to grab a justice of the peace or anything. But I wonder if you (or anyone else) would agree that, making an open declaration of your commitment (even if it’s only in front of a couple of friends) to someone should be considered an important part of marriage? ---
**Author:** ![Wrenchslinger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/94ad74/32.png) [@Wrenchslinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenchslinger)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/87 "2004-03-04T06:34:56Z")
> [@Lilairen](#): > > Polyandry is a subtype of polygamy, not some different thing. Thank you for correcting me. My mistake in confusing my terms, I meant to use polygyny. (It’s been too long since I studied Greek) > [@](#): > > You would have a much stronger leg to stand on about “the definition of marriage” and changing it if you were not subscribing to a revisionist definition thereof. (Or, for that matter, if you weren’t attempting to argue that my marriage does not exist.) > > My claim of revisionism on this, incidentally, is based on a very basic layman’s awareness of anthropology, not my personal preferences. Well, obviously you’re entitled to your opinion. But, FWIW, I not trying to say your relationships are null and void, nor have I ever tried to claim that any polygamous grouping is not a family unit. I have only tried to argue that your family situation has a different makeup than is referred to by the term marriage, according to my understand of both the dictionary definition and current cultural assumptions. > [@](#): > > Did someone advocate changing the divorce laws? As far as I know, anyone can get a divorce at any time for any reason; are you expecting this to change to “anyone can get a divorce at any time for any reason except in cases of multiple marriage”? Of course not, but I forsee problems with current divorce laws not being capable of dealing with the distribution of property and custodial rights in the event of a polygamous divorce. > [@](#): > > Look up Jewish conventions on writing the name of Hashem. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I learned something I didn’t know. I will keep it in mind in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenchslinger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/94ad74/32.png) [@Wrenchslinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenchslinger)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/88 "2004-03-04T06:42:24Z")
> [@Lilairen](#): > > Polyandry is a subtype of polygamy, not some different thing. Thank you for correcting me. My mistake in confusing my terms, I meant to use polygyny. (It’s been too long since I studied Greek) > [@](#): > > You would have a much stronger leg to stand on about “the definition of marriage” and changing it if you were not subscribing to a revisionist definition thereof. (Or, for that matter, if you weren’t attempting to argue that my marriage does not exist.) > > My claim of revisionism on this, incidentally, is based on a very basic layman’s awareness of anthropology, not my personal preferences. Well, obviously you’re entitled to your opinion. But, FWIW, I not trying to say your relationships are null and void, nor have I ever tried to claim that any polygamous grouping is not a family unit. I have only tried to argue that your family situation has a different makeup than is referred to by the term marriage, according to my understand of both the dictionary definition and current cultural assumptions. > [@](#): > > Did someone advocate changing the divorce laws? As far as I know, anyone can get a divorce at any time for any reason; are you expecting this to change to “anyone can get a divorce at any time for any reason except in cases of multiple marriage”? Of course not, but I forsee problems with current divorce laws not being capable of dealing with the distribution of property and custodial rights in the event of a polygamous divorce. > [@](#): > > Look up Jewish conventions on writing the name of Hashem. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I learned something I didn’t know. I will keep it in mind in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/89 "2004-03-04T06:46:27Z")
> [@Wrenchslinger](#): > > But I wonder if you (or anyone else) would agree that, making an open declaration of your commitment (even if it’s only in front of a couple of friends) to someone should be considered an important part of marriage? Yes. Marriage is, in my book, a community (and community-building) ritual. It binds the family it forms to the surrounding community and the community to that family. (I have a very difficult and painful time even with being closeted, so I don’t.) I firmly believe that having partnerships that cannot be recognised by the community weakens those families, the community, and to a great extent, marriage itself. (My evidence for the last is anecdotal; however, I know a fair number of people who refuse to get married because they consider its limitation to heterosexuals with one declared partner has destroyed its value. Some of them will even argue with people who desire to get married; recently in one forum I read there was an outbreak of suggestions that people who were married should divorce rather than participate in such a discriminatory institution.) ---
**Author:** ![lee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lee/32/7455_2.png) [@lee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lee)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/90 "2004-03-04T13:04:01Z")
When my husband and I got married, there was only one official witness, and the judge. No one that I would call a friend was there, and my family was too busy and his we had fled. We knew just as it had been from the start that we had no one but each other and no one else cared about our union at all. Most people I talked to were openly skeptical, telling me that I had made a mistake and it would not last. In comparison, Kelly’s reception by my friends and family was warm. My parents welcomed her and our friends did to. Everyone accepts her, and then there is both Vernon and I to welcome her to the family. No one I personally talked t was dismissive as they were when I got married at 20. The most cautious thing that was said, was a stern warning by my mother to be nice to my husband and not ignore him. ---
**Author:** ![msklystron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/43a26b/32.png) [@msklystron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msklystron)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/91 "2004-03-04T22:54:01Z")
> [@lee](#): > > When my husband and I got married, there was only one official witness, and the judge. No one that I would call a friend was there, and my family was too busy and his we had fled. We knew just as it had been from the start that we had no one but each other and no one else cared about our union at all. Most people I talked to were openly skeptical, telling me that I had made a mistake and it would not last. > > In comparison, Kelly’s reception by my friends and family was warm. My parents welcomed her and our friends did to. Everyone accepts her, and then there is both Vernon and I to welcome her to the family. No one I personally talked t was dismissive as they were when I got married at 20. The most cautious thing that was said, was a stern warning by my mother to be nice to my husband and not ignore him. I had a huge happy wedding and a good marriage for about 10 years. Can’t complain about that. And when it fell apart, my family and so many friends were there for me. I can’t describe the kindnesses after the break-up that have come my way and are still coming – without bursting into tears… Your mum sounds cool and mum always knows best. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/92 "2004-03-05T15:15:33Z")
> [@Wrenchslinger](#): > > How dare you make such a disgusting, unwarranted accusation? Perhaps you are offended by my definition of marriage, but I have not, nor would I ever stoop to say something so blatantly inflammatory and disrespectful. I had assumed we were capable of having an intelligent, respectful debate. I guess I was wrong. The reference to “Have you stopped beating your wife?” was not directed at you personally, it happens to be the most infamous of questions to demonstrate a basic [logical fallacy](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#complexq). You’re still a newby here, and I would strongly recommend you read through the rest of this page and try to avoid fallacious arguments in your GD posts. > [@](#): > > Wrong. You’re obviously confused here. My original question was “What is Marriage.” That’s it. I later asked the question you quoted in an attempt to get the defenders of marraige as a sacramental union between and man and a woman to defend themselves. Obviously this distinction was lost on you. Your OP is just fine. The point being argued is whether monogamy plays a role in the definition of marriage. Your later question contained the fallacy of presuppostion. Understand? And while you ponder logical fallacies, take a look at this: > [@](#): > > What’s to stop John from arguing that he should be allowed to keep as many spouses as he wants, and if Jane doesn’t like it that’s her problem? And if he does argue such, and the law backs him up (since there is no distinction made between monogamy and polygamy) then what right does Jane have to financial or custodial consideration? … > > And as for your contention that legal recognition of marraige does not incorporate any criteria of monogomy permit me to direct your attention to New York State’s Domestic Relations Law: … > > But let’s not rob monogamists of the protections that the current law grants them. All three of those statements represent “strawman” arguments. If anyone had suggested that John could marry Julie without Jane’s approval, you argument would be valid. But no one has, and it isn’t. In the second, you point to a New York law that forbids bigamy. You use it to support a supposition that monogamy is a criteria of marriage under the law. But one doesn’t have to be a bigamist to be non-monogamous. And while adultery may be basis for divorce, you won’t find any statute that states that marriages are null and void if either party commits adultery (which is the burden you would bear). And in the third, no one has argued that monogamists would be robbed of anything under the law. In facts, the arguments have been directly to the contrary. > [@](#): > > I had assumed we were capable of having an intelligent, respectful debate. I guess I was wrong. Takes two to tango. > [@](#): > > What gives you more right? Are you “more married” than me because you have multiple spouses? Funny, I said “if not more right”, but, if I wanted to make this argument, I’d quote **Wrenchslinger** : > [@](#): > > I’m happy that you, your husband, your daughter, and her mother are a fully functioning, stable and strong family unit. I simply think that such realtionship is something **more than a marraige**. (Emphasis added) > [@](#): > > Look, I don’t think that polygamy should be penalized. Sure you do, because you would not extend the same legal protections of “traditional” marriage to polygamists (or even polyamorists, for that matter). > [@](#): > > As far as I understand it, there are far more monogamists in America than polygamists. That would seem to me to make monogamous marriage the more commonly understood meaning of the word. Considering polygamy is illegal, it would go without saying. On the other hand, most estimates on marital fidelity would suggest that less than half of all marriages live up to your monogamous ideal. Which, again, suggests that your definition fails the common use test. > [@](#): > > You say in repsonse, “Couples must choose beforehand what kind of partnership they want to enter into.” Fine, I say than that the law must recognize two separate kinds of relationships. And in doing so it must treat monogamy and polygamy as separate types of wedlock. Which is basically all I’ve been saying from the start. Well, no, that wouldn’t be my response. In my example, John and Jane agreed to a monogamous partnership initially. They mutually agreed to change the nature of their commitment. These are not two separate kinds of relationships. One simply permits more than one such relationship at the same time, while the other only permits one at a time (while permitting multiple relationships one after the other). John’s relationship to Jane could be identical to his relationship to Julie. Either would be considered marriage. Why call it something different if they happen to coincide? > [@msklystron](#): > > I was recently asked to consider a committed relationship where I would be the one having other partners. I refused because I wasn’t ethically and emotionally comfortable with the idea. Fair enough. It’s nice to have the choice, though, isn’t it? There are some that would have you penalized if you chose differently. > [@](#): > > All I can say is you must be far more sophistocated than I am. I realize you were addressing **lee** , but if I might: Sophisticated? No, I doubt it. Just different. > [@](#): > > How about this arrangement: Jane and John are legally married and they invite Jill into to relationship. Due to irreconcilable differences she leaves the arrangement. First of all Jill will have a hard time obtaining spousal support even with a signed domestic agreement. She likely won’t be entitled to any property other than what she came into the arrangement with. Assuming Jane contributed to the domestic upkeep and economics in some way, she would lose out financially in this arrangement upon divorce. Which is one of the reasons why the marriage laws need to cover these issues, to protect the Jills of the world. > [@](#): > > So Wrenchslinger is quite likely correct that monogamy is protected against adultery under the law. Since removing or altering the legal definition of adultery, which would be necessary in order allow for multiple/parallel unions, the rights of those in monogamous marriages may be jeopardized. Interesting logic. Monogamy is protected by adultery laws, but such protection isn’t really necessary due to no-fault divorce (as you note). Also, note the [dictionary](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adultery) definition would still work: “Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse”. So please clarify how the rights of those in monogamous marriages may be jeopardized in any way. > [@Wrenchslinger](#): > > Of course not, but I forsee problems with current divorce laws not being capable of dealing with the distribution of property and custodial rights in the event of a polygamous divorce. Let’s assume you are right. Would you support changes in the divorce laws to deal with polygamous marriage (and any associated dissolution thereof)? ---
**Author:** ![msklystron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/43a26b/32.png) [@msklystron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msklystron)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/93 "2004-03-05T23:42:19Z")
AZCowboy, I can only speak about Canadian laws. Adultery is one of three grounds for divorce. The other two are: Mental/physical cruelty and Irreconcilable differences. The latter represents what people refer to as ‘no fault divorce’. In other words, no witnesses or evidence is required, just a one year separation without co-habitation. Adultery is still on the books as a legitimate grounds for divorce for good reason. It is there to protect monogamy. Polygyny and monogamy are at odds in this area. However, one could cheat in a polygynous relationship if permission from the other partners were not sought (this would be either adultery or bigamy). In my opinion, polygyny should not be illegal. However, I would be reluctant to grant mulitiple spouses the same protections under the law as monogamous spouses. Practically and logically it would be a nightmare to combine it with the legalease regarding monogamous marriages, which are far more common. And I would be reluctant to see gov’t bodies sanction such marriages by performing them. The reasons have been stated here by others. It is just too damn complicated to work out the rights and finances. In the event of divorce, death, illness: I think members of polygynous relationships would do far better with domestic contracts that are signed by all members. I hope that clarifies. I really wish KellyM and Lee all the best. I do not think their relationship should be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/94 "2004-03-06T01:56:34Z")
> [@msklystron](#): > > In my opinion, polygyny should not be illegal. And again, “polygyny” is a gendered term. I have two _male_ primary partners. **lee** , as I understand it, has one male and one female primary partner. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/95 "2004-03-06T02:14:55Z")
> [@msklystron](#): > > In my opinion, polygyny should not be illegal. … I really wish KellyM and Lee all the best. I do not think their relationship should be illegal. Our relationship cannot be properly described by the term “polygyny”. ---
**Author:** ![msklystron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/43a26b/32.png) [@msklystron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msklystron)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/96 "2004-03-06T02:27:19Z")
lilairian, Sorry. Polygyny is more common in North America. I was referring to Lee. She has a polygynous family because there are two females and one male. Technically there is no term for Lee’s union because KellyM is transgendered and Lee is bisexual. I really don’t want to get caught up in terminology. Polylandry is more common in eastern cultures than here. It’s not my bag but I don’t think it should be illegal either. ---
**Author:** ![msklystron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/43a26b/32.png) [@msklystron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msklystron)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/97 "2004-03-06T02:29:27Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > Our relationship cannot be properly described by the term “polygyny”. Holy Cow KellyM! Look at that stupid typo. The last sentence should read ‘should NOT be illegal’. Yes, your family grouping is unique. ---
**Author:** ![msklystron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/43a26b/32.png) [@msklystron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msklystron)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/98 "2004-03-06T02:33:11Z")
I shoulda quit while I was ahead. The dylexia is very bad today. What do you call a union between two dyslexics? ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/99 "2004-03-06T02:58:23Z")
> [@msklystron](#): > > Yes, your family grouping is unique. No, it’s not. I know of another family which consists of a bisexual woman whose lovers are male-to-female transsexual and a man. Although they don’t have kids, yet, and I think that they’re a complete triad, rather than a vee. For my family to be polygynous I would have to _not_ be **lee** ’s lover and, instead, be her husband’s lover. The relationship between myself and **lee** ’s husband is not even remotely sexual; there is not even a semblance of a direct marital tie there. _Polygyny_ refers only to the case of one man who has marital ties with multiple women, and there is no expectation that the women in such a relationship will have direct marital ties with one another. Using the term _polygyny_ to refer to a complete triad or to a M-F-F vee where the pivot individual is female is inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![lee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lee/32/7455_2.png) [@lee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lee)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124/100 "2004-03-06T23:34:04Z")
Why shouldn’t KellyM be eligible for the full rights of marriage just as my husband is? She is in it for long haul too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-marriage/231124.md?page=6)