Sinead's Hand

[taysteewonderbunny]

Nope. Actually, historically/anthropologically speaking, it was still more about stuff than about religion. For instance, in old Europe, even when religion was pretty important... marriage and fidelity was held important because of the rights of inheritance. Royal bloodlines of many cultures where the line of descent was important for inheritance of titles and land wanted to know that their line was unbroken, that it was one of their own that inherited. That's why so many royals of so many cultures were prone to hemophilia--because of the inbreeding.

I'm not saying religion has nothing to do with marriage.

I'm saying that historically speaking, it has little to do with marriage. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is about laws, and rights, and *stuff*. Always has been. Used to be that religion had a lot to do with laws, so religion was a part of marriage.

That said, I'm not an atheist.

However---this is what I think:

What I did with my husband in front of the judge was about law, rights, and stuff. In the eyes of the law, that's Marriage.

What I did in front of the priest and priestess, with our families and friends assembled, was about love and religion. That's life.

My main point was an arguement toward Rev's claim that without religion there wouldnt be marriage. Marriage was never historically about religion. It's about "that woman is mineminemine and you cant touch her neenerneener cause she is mine! .....and so is her stuff." LOL

I was talking about prehistory, before recorded history. And I would never make the claim that it WASN'T about property, power, or money, just that the authority to declare a marriage a marriage was not grounded in secular practice when it started, but with religion. But even in your example, medieval Europe, do you suppose that those marriages, even betwixt royal couples of the same family lineage, wasn't presided over by clergy?

A wee article on the subject

To sum up, I think that you are BOTH right: property rights and socio-political alliances necessitated marriage in the first place, but it had always, until recently, fallen under the rubric of religious practice.

[Rev.Reverence]

You're missing the point of the scholarly arguement.

But no matter.

Interesting discussion regardless.

No..certainly not....just disagreeing...does not mean that your comments do not cause I to think very hard...I want to ask someone who studies THIS SHIT IN PARTICULAR...he is asleep right now...I'll call him at the proper hour, to request the super good starting point for some searching on the subject....I'm working on the noises today..or, I'ld dig the research out myself, from the stone age, to today...expect it to be forthcoming...to light the truth of the matter...I want to get to the bottom of this semantic quagmire...

SEE...what you describe as marriage, & what I describe as marriage, are super different...

I am certain that Marriage is a matter of the Mind, Body, & Soul...of at least two peoples...if one does not believe in Deity, how can one believe in it's own Soul? (a Soul, in ALL the Mystery Schools, is an extension of the Divine.)

Where I said, "Religion"...please, let me clarify, "Spirituality"...I was in a rush, & using other peoples words...

I think that the problem with Marriage in this society is that it has become WAY MORE about STUFF...than about THE PEOPLES.

[candyman]

No..certainly not....just disagreeing...does not mean that your comments do not cause I to think very hard...I want to ask someone who studies THIS SHIT IN PARTICULAR...he is asleep right now...I'll call him at the proper hour, to request the super good starting point for some searching on the subject....I'm working on the noises today..or, I'ld dig the research out myself, from the stone age, to today...expect it to be forthcoming...to light the truth of the matter...I want to get to the bottom of this semantic quagmire...

I think that the problem with Marriage in this society is that it has become WAY MORE about STUFF...than about THE PEOPLES.

Ya think?!?! Everything about marriage today is about stuff...like what stuff do I get and what stuff can I get. If you don't give the other person more stuff they will take their stuff, get their lawyer to take alot of your stuff, and then use your joint account to buy more stuff! My cousin has been through two divorces now and she has TONS of stuff...like her house is full of crap she never uses or even LIKES and she has two storage sheds full of other stuff.

Not that I am taking a side here but marriage based on something other than stuff seems to work out better that marriage based on stuff...and stuff includes the tax breaks and stuff. Marriage for stuff is a sham...and to back up my point I am going to point at Royalty!

[Rev.Reverence]

Did you read the second half of my rant?

Seriously though...thanx for agreeing with me.

[candyman]

Did you read the second half of my rant?

Seriously though...thanx for agreeing with me.

Yes I did...sorry this hangover is not helping me think very well...and it seems I somehow deleted the middle of your rant and left only the first and last part...

[Rev.Reverence]

Yes I did...sorry this hangover is not helping me think very well...and it seems I somehow deleted the middle of your rant and left only the first and last part...

[candyman]

U comin on to me?

[Rev.Reverence]

U comin on to me?

Ew...only ew.....................it was a wink of understanding...perv.

[TygerLili]

If we're talking about semantics here, it's worth my time to note that to make the marriage legal you need apply for a "marriage license" and it's called a marriage license whether you are married by a priest or a judge.

If a gay/lesbian couple is active within a church/religion I see no reason that couple shouldn't be able to have a religious ceremony.

I also think there are lots of reasons to get married, religion or no. If I am going to spend my life with someone, I want to have a legally binding marriage contract between me and that person stating that we will love, honor, and respect each other and our union.

[the eternal]

I am going to try not to do a long post, even though I have so many thoughts on this issue and so may things to respond to.

Rev--- First of all, although I stopped using multiple colors in my posts, because I found that it's easier for many to see my points in one color, I completely get your individuality, but PLEASE use colors that show up well.

(I'm a fan of your use of dark green, esp when you use it to respond to someone within their quote, but certain others like red will cause me blindness at some point (I only say this because I love what you have to say)

Rev-- I have to disagree with your statement here

" ...the LGBT, in their massive wisdom, don't see that Civil Union is semantically the same shit..."

The way I see it, there are two BIG reasons for gay marriage, not civil unions, gay marriage, FEDERAL gay marriage.

(I've tired of states doing it. Let's put it to the country, so we can give gays, lesbians, etc equality everywhere and move on)

1. LGBTs WILL NOT have equal protection UNTIL they are given full marriage equality

This next section is taken directly from the Human Rights Campaign---

Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners

Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are DENIED access to more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples.

Among those are:

--The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency.

Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency.

If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right.

This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.

(That's right the same dad that disowned you because you're a fag now has more say in your welfare than your loving partner of 10 years)

--The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner.

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.

--The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.

--The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means.

For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, non biological or nonadaptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.

--The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.

--Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.

--The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will. (which many people can't afford)

--The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

(Tell me that's not important in the state of Michigan)

Such inequities impose added costs on these families, such as increased health insurance premiums, higher tax burdens and the absence of pension benefits or Social Security benefits in the event of a partner's death.

Some same-sex and transgender families consult attorneys, (at GREAT PERSONAL COST to them, IF they can afford it)

to draw up legal documents such as powers of attorney, co-parenting agreements and wills, that will at least permit them to:

-- declare who they wish to make health care and financial decisions for them if they become incapacitated;

--how they wish to share parenting responsibilities or, in the event of a breakup, custody of a child; and

--what they want to happen to their property when they die.

However, these are not a substitute for legal protection under law and cannot provide the broad range of benefits and protections provided by law.

2. Legitimacy

Candyman questioned

"Is it(the drive for gay marriage) so they can shove it in the faces of people that think differently than they do?"

In a way, YES! But in the most wonderful positive way possible. (And devoid of anything shoved in another's face)

See, there's a reason why a growing number of politicians say, "I support civil unions, but not gay marriage."

Ask yourself, if it is basically the same thing (which I showed above it isn't but it IS sold that way) why is there such a division???

Because politicians want to give equality, while also acknowledging to their supporters who find it offensive, that it's not really marriage.

It's a way of saying "You have equal rights (which is a myth as shown above) but your relationship does not hold the same validity as a man and woman's, so we can't really give you the title of married.

Because you're not. That's only for good g-d fearing Christians, (or any other opposite sex couple that wants to get married)

So, it's a way to pacify gay people AND shut up conservatives who can't stand the thought of LGBTs put on the same equal level as straight people.

Simply put, by legalizing same-sex marriage, it is saying, not shoving in their face mind you, but saying to those "that think differently than they do" (as Candyman put it)

same sex couples, in the eyes of the law are 100% equal to opposite sex couples, they have the same rights, same protections, and therefore their relationships are EVERY BIT AS VALID as opposite sex ones.

You can condemn us to hell, but you can't deny that we are equal while on this earthly realm.

Not that there hasn't been an effort in the past to give people rights that were separate but equal. I just don't think it worked out so well.

[Slogo]

And a +1 to you kind sir^

Now if we could only give the same rights to Human-Banana relationships

[Rev.Reverence]

Points (mostly) pre-known & already taken into account, eternal.

I still disagree with the semantics that the WHOLE of the populous is using. (As is becoming the usual.)

Follow me into my vision...

Marry- word from long ago:

* Main Entry: 1mar·ry

* Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ē, ˈma-rē\

* Function: verb

* Inflected Form(s): mar·ried; mar·ry·ing

* Etymology: Middle English marien, from Anglo-French marier, from Latin maritare, from maritus married

* Date: 14th century

transitive verb 1 a : to join in marriage according to law or custom b : to give in marriage <married his daughter to his partner's son> c : to take as spouse : wed <married the girl next door> d : to perform the ceremony of marriage for <a priest will marry them> e : to obtain by marriage <marry wealth>

2 : to unite in close and usually permanent relation

marītus m. (feminine marīta, neuter marītum); first/second declension

* Main Entry: mat·ri·mo·ny

* Pronunciation: \ˈma-trə-ˌmō-nē\

* Function: noun

* Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French matrimoignie, from Latin matrimonium, from matr-, mater mother, matron — more at mother

* Date: 14th century

: the union of man and woman as husband and wife

Through my studies, far & wide...I know that Yoga, means Union...that in most every Church this marriage we speak of, is a joining of the whole of two peoples...& it is a matter concerning the mind, body, & soul. This implies at a root, a Spiritual tradition...regardless of the modern, bastardized usage...

Civil Union: is a VERY new (so far as the ages of words go), & wholly secular term.

A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage. Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in many developed countries in order to provide same-sex couples with rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar (in some countries, identical) to opposite-sex civil marriage. In some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, New Zealand, and Uruguay, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples.

Most civil-union countries recognize foreign unions if those are essentially equivalent to their own; for example, the United Kingdom lists equivalent unions in Civil Partnership Act Schedule 20.

Some commentators, such as Ian Ayres, are critical of civil unions because they say they represent separate status unequal to marriage ("marriage apartheid"). Others, such as Sean Kosofsky, are critical because they say civil unions endow the same rights and privileges of heterosexual marriages — because they allow same-sex marriage by using a different name.

SO...here we have the impasse...both sides are in critical error, using OLD thought forms in a NEW AGE...

...I think I see this because I am on neither side.

MY SOLUTION:

The Government will cease handing out Marriage Licenses...

...your Church will tell you if you can get married...

...EVERYONE that wants their tax break/1,000-some-odd other federal rights...can get a Civil Union.

(Note the marked use of a period.)

Does that speak my view well? I'm rather concentrated on other things for the now...

(sorry if I blinded you somewhere)

[freydis]

The eventual point I forgot to make was....

Yes, historically speaking (not religiously speaking), marriage has been about right of inheritance.

All the myriad little legal bits?

That's what the fight for gay marriage is really about.

They can already stand in front of many different priests of many different religions, and be declared married in the eyes of their god(s). However, everyone else can do that, and have it count for the State (law) as well as their religion.

They just want the right to be like everyone else.

As many of the points The Eternal brought up covered.

[Oh_My_Goth]

This is Ireland's Gay Rights movement's ad for marriage equality. Rather clever ad. Has a bit of a point too, now doesn't it?

I just got the chance to watch this.. I think it makes a great point.