Skip to main content

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.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  But (4+ / 0-)

    no babies from gays!  Bad!  Unless they could make straight babies!  I think!

    Still enjoying my stimulus package.

    by Kevvboy on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:33:10 PM PDT

  •  Marriage is a Government Not a Religious Insti- (7+ / 0-)


    Which is why Jesus' Biblical role at a wedding was only to juice up the after-party; he never married anyone ever. It's also why no priest or pastor can pronounce anyone married except "by the authority vested in me by the state...." and religious authorities have no power to divorce anyone.

    --Leaving aside the often-cited fact that traditional Biblical marriage was often polygamous and permissive of concubines on the side.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:33:55 PM PDT

    •  Had this same discussion recently... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mortifyd, blueoasis, phonegery

      with another that marriage actually found it foundation in law, and not religion.  It is, after all, a contract of sorts, even from the earliest of times.  

    •  A friend of mine pointed out (2+ / 0-)

      that the term for a "sacred" religious marriage, at least in many Christian denominations, is actually "holy matrimony."  Marriage is the legal act, not the religious one.

    •  The word "marriage" has more than one (0+ / 0-)

      definition, like many other words.

      One, used by the legal system, refers to the legal relationship between two adults. This has nothing to do with religion, sexual practices (or the lack of them), or morality. It primarily influences financial matters.

      A second, used by many religions, refers to the religious ceremony that is used to approve some relationships between two people. This has nothing to do with their legal status.

      The anti-gay-marriage crowd deliberately confuses these definitions. They want people to think that marriage equality means that they are endorsing some kind of icky sexual doings that they would prefer not to think about.

      I understand this revulsion- I feel the same way when I think about Rush Limbaugh having sex. But that doesn't mean that I think that he shouldn't be allowed to get a marriage license.

  •  What strikes me when (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, wayoutinthestix

    people use the Adam and Eve argument, is that they are ignoring the thousands of years of human history before the Christian religion was formed.

    Back in the day, people worshipped Goddesses, just as frequently if not more frequently than any one God (which there were several of).

    I am pretty sure they had some version of marriage back then, and in many places, the land and money transferred through the female line.

    I guess for Bible literalist, these times never really existed, so they have no worth and should not be included in the evaluation of what was 'traditionally' defined as marriage.

    I just wish if they have to use the Bible to condemn others, then they should have to live by the totality of what is in the Bible, and give up pork, shell fish, clothes made of more than one substance, death if you cheat on your spouse, etc.

    I am just flabbergasted at the lack of knowledge of history, content of their own basic text, and the will to so vehemently judge others when their scripture says not to.

  •  I understand that definitions are important (0+ / 0-)

    and all that, but I fail to understand why "redefining" something is considered a legitimate legal argument.

  •  Magical thinking. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dogs are fuzzy, skohayes

    It reminds me of a small child reacting with outraged indignation to being I-got-your-nosed.

    No one is stealing your marriage by redefining it as between two people of the same sex--no more than it was stolen when it was (in my own lifetime) redefined as being between two people of different races.

    And, by the way, throughout most of human existence, most marriage was defined as being between one man and several women. Still is in a big part of the world.

    "I wonder why Congress again in a new poll out today--11% approval rating. (It's) because they don't work for us. They work for the sons-of-bitches who pay them." Cenk Uygur

    by Dave in Columbus on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 08:31:50 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site