OK

We've all heard the assertion that marriage has always been between a man and a woman (or women). Many people feel that marriage is a sacrament, that is a reflection of natural law. They say that gays may be free to love who they wish, and to live with those they love, and even have a "domestic partnership' under law, but they have no right to change the (holy) definition of marriage. I find it odd that pundits and journalist never seem to delve into the logic behind this anti-gay truism.

Of course, we all remember that EVE was created to be Adams spouse. That shows that God's intent was that the role of women was to be a wife and mother. This is the traditional and Biblical definition of women. Over the centuries, women were often loved and respected by their husbands, but were usually considered by tradition to be second-class citizens: Unable to be priests, unable to own property independently, and in the United States, unable to vote.  All of these were considered reasonable because by natural law women were subservient to their husbands. But democracy changed all this.  After the civil war, our forefathers expanded the Constitutional meaning of the term 'men' to include black men, in 1926 they expanded the meaning of the term 'men' to include women when women were given the right to vote.  The concept of privacy within marriage was re-defined when rape and assault of a spouse was made a criminal matter. Women could own property in their own name.  Women could petition the courts for a divorce.  Our entire notion of the Constitutional rights of individuals has been slowly expanding, so it is quite absurd to suggest these days that the term 'marriage' is where we must draw the line and resist equality in the name of lexical conservatism.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.