How Getting Married Made Me An Activist

Now, regarding the "it
anyone before marriage, and contact only with her "owner" (husband)He, however, could and usually did
For most of human history, women were chattel, incubators, traded between families as a way to cement alliances and deals. Marriage was about economics and politics. The notion of romantic love being tied to marriage got its start in maybe the late Renaissance period, and didn't really take off until the Enlightenment period.

SHE had to be a certified virgin. Her unpaid labor in the home and fields, in addition to bearing "certified" heirs was her primary importance. He, however, could usually keep a stable of secondary wives, concubines, mistresses...or just go to a brothel.

And as for this monumentally inequitable arrangement? Well, it appears to be sanctioned by the Bible; numerous times and by numerous patriarchs and kings, I might add! Hagar was pressed into sexual servitude by Abraham and Sarah, then cast aside like a worn shoe (on Yahweh's orders!) when Sarah conceived a "pure" heir to Abraham's linage. Solomon certainly got around, too - 300 wives and 700 concubines. And then there's David who took at least seven wives and many concubines (and the scholars are still in debate over his relationship with Jonathan) before getting himself in trouble with a Hittite.

Olbermann said it more eloquently than I could in his impassioned "Comment of the Night" on his show. What threatens you about their love? Why does the fact that some men love man and some women love women terrify you so? It's not a "choice" or a "lifestyle," it is something inborn. Numerous studies and even nature will testify to it, as homosexual behavior has been exhibited in no less than two dozen species.

No one is asking you to approve of their existence. Their love is an abomination in your religion? Well, so are a lot of things, and your religion is not the only one in this country. I also see it as an infringement on MY religious freedoms, as my clan and I are Neo-Pagan, and most sects of our faith see no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one. In the eyes of the Lord and Lady, they are the same.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you know the kids are talkin about all you 'adults' out there. The kids have to go with the refs in a game of basketball, but not you guys, I'm sorry I mean 'gays'. You get to change the rules as you go along. Not only is the general population (newflash, media) talking about the sad mental state of losers, but it was observed that JRR Tolkein was something of a prophet as noted by a student at school, which I thought was ironic. Here is the jist of the conversation. He stated, "Gollum is gay." (What? How say you?) "Sure, he is gay, because he has gone from being a definite man to being a nebulous creature, losing hair and muscle tone by the disease of obsession, possessing hate for himself and disrespect for others." (Wow! Really? Hmmm.... Interesting.) "Yeah and what really makes him gay is that he will do anything for the ring which is really a wedding ring, symbolizing marriage. He talks to anyone who will listen and he will lie, cry and say anything to get his way and ALWAYS plays the victim, like he had no choice in arriving at his depraved state of misery." (How I would LOVE to give a byline to this kid! But, he would be targeted for having a brain! He also observed,) "The gays won't stop trying for marriage anymore than Gollum will give up hope for the ring, even if it means tearing down the rest of the world. They are not only dangerous to the general population, but dangerous to themselves, because when they run out of people to annoy and make miserable, they will turn on themselves and implode. I think we need to find a new planet and either send them all there, or ditch them here. It will probably come down to that kind of fight. They don't want to hear 'no', they'd rather die." (Holy sheesh! That's a kid in high school, people! There is HOPE for this world!)

To maxxygrrl, please remember what you should have learned in civics and American History: the different branches of our government, federal, state and local, were all created with the intent that each could keep the other in check. If the legislative branch or even the popular vote of the people create a law which indeed does viloate the rights of any citizen that are guaranteed by the constitution and the state's constitituitons, and it is challenged in the courts of law, it most certainly can be overturned. Before you open your mouth and make statements, do your own research as well.

Sodom and Gomorrah~ There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof is death. Do not pretend to be surprised when the judgment comes.

You may win this argument with men, but you will not win it before the Holy One.

Repent, and turn away from all wickedness and abominations, while there is time and space to do so.

DRS

You're right Candyeb, you don't 'need' marriage to love someone. I am not a big fan of marriage myself, walking down the aisle, exchanging vows... for what? Half of marriages around the world end up in divorces.
I still would get married if I could though. As a French citizen partnered with an American man for 9 years, we currently have no way to protect each other or grant each other's rights through our civil partnership. I can't live in the US without a visa, and my partner cannot get the French citizenship he would automatically be granted if we were married under French law. We don't care about the marriage 'circus', we simply want equal rights, preferably on both sides of the ocean.
One thing I don't get about people opposing the gay marriage is : what is it to them? How is it any threat?
To people who call themselves christians: you seem to conveniently forget about a certain set of rules (ten, to be precise) according to which you should live your lives (especially the ones inviting you not to judge others and to treat them like you would want others to treat you). Why is it that your words are always all about hate?

What many don't realize is that if all the California Mormons voted for Prop 8, it would have won by a landslide, not just a small margin, So attacking this religion who also have members of same-sex persuasions in their ranks, makes no sense to me, nor should it make sense to anyone else. That is a hate measure exacted by frustrated losers. Another thing; to quote Shakespeare himself all you thespians, a rose called by any other name still smells sweet. You cannot call a skunk a rose and change its scent, you just wreck the distinction of the rose by its false association. When society redefines marriage as man to man or woman to woman, marriage becomes a joke, so watered down no one will be able to recognize it any longer. It is an endangered species in my mind right now. Not only that, but real men and real women are becoming endangered species. It is always something new to the next generation to challenge the status quo. Once this is allowed on the books and in the courts and in the bedrooms and homes and churches, the next generation will say, "Why not marry my dog???"

You can't redefine what "marriage" is...it is clearly a man and a woman. If you want a union that gives you all the rights and protections equal to what marriage gives couples the majority of people would vote for that. I remember when gays preached they wanted tolerance, then they wanted acceptance, now they want to force us to recognize their relationship as the exact same as those married. You clearly have the first two and you clearly don't and shouldn't get the 3rd. Squaters rights at the very least, please come up with your own term and own it proudly as we do ours. Also why do you say gays had to force the government to increase funds for Aids? I thought gays say it's not a gay disease? I thought it doesn't effect more gay men then it does straight men and women? You mention how gays have rallied together to fight back....I could argue that christians have done the same since those in San Francisco including the mayor defied the people's vote. If California votes it down you should realize how much of a statement that is.

Buck up gay patriots, time is on our side. My same-sex spouse and I live in Texas, where we were married a year ago, in a church, by a minister. And we didn't need the law to tell us we are married. Opponents of gay marriage are right about one thing--marriage is a sacred institution. That is why we chose a religious ceremony, where, before 200 friends and family, we exchanged our vows and our union was blessed by God. Who needs a state law for that? Gay Marriage is already an accomplished fact, even in places like Texas. And it's here to stay.

Why do we even need marriage? We don't! I don't need a piece of paper or a ceremony to say I love someone and want to be with them for the rest of my life. If you are truly committed to the other person and love them, nothing else matters and no piece of paper or ceremony is going to change that. I personally will never get married, not only because I believe this, but also because I do not want to be part of anything that tells people who can and cannot marry.

If marriage is a civil right, then children have that right. So a child of any age would have the right to marry without the consent of a parent. Civil rights cannot be granted only when a person reaches a legal age. It would be ludicrous to argue that a child of an ethnic minority can be forced to labor in a sweatshop before they reach an age when their civil rights are bestowed. That was one of the first issues the industrial revolution raised. This claim of a right to marry is a fabrication. There is obviously government regulation of marriage defined by the democratic process.

My wife and I Made History October 10, 2008 in Mass.

A definition of Marriage issue, not a rights issue!! It is very difficult to understand why the authorof this article and the Quindlen article cannot understand that this is NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. It is a definition of the word marriage issue. Worldwide in nearly all religions and cultures, marriage has been a procrational union between a male and female. The gay and lesbian community will never be procreational unless an aberrant genetic change takes place. If a public ceremony is necessary to demonstrate their love and committment to each other, then select another term or title. Such as, Civil Union, Forevertogether, Pledged, Domestic Union, Coupled, or any other term they select. Just leave the defenition of the word Marriage to represent what it has always represented. The same civil rights are already in existence, so it is NOT A RIGHTS ISSUE.
Dr. John C. Brown Claremont, CA

Marriage is a religious sacrament. No government, federal or local, should be able to sanction a marriage or any other religious rite. This is a separation of church and state issue. Civil Unions, a legal contract, is what the government can legally offer. This is undeniably clear. We should move for a constitutional amendment clearly disallowing the government sponsorship of the the religious sacrament of "marriage."

This is a national issue. If we want to support holy marriage, how can we see the federal equivalent of Proposition 8 enacted? There is a clear majority of voters who support it.

This is a national issue. If we want to support holy marriage, how can we see the federal equivalent of Proposition 8 enacted? There is a clear majority of voters who support it.