California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

[Dignan]

It would appear the Romans had same-sex marriages until they went all catholic.

[club33az]

What DIDN'T the Romans do is the better question.

[Dignan]

[Sir_Cliff]

Well, the Catholic Church hasn't been around all that long, now has it?

Ancient Rome and Greece were both theocracies, as was ancient Egypt. "Marriages" of ancient times had serious spiritual rooting. The 'marriage' would be eternal, even after death. Heck, in some cases, the death of the hubby meant the death of his wife - so that they'd be together in the afterlife.

"Secular" marriage has really been a more modern invention, with the legal consequences and conditions being attached to it. It's something that has evolved out of a culture that embraces marriage. However, if it is every to be truly removed from its religious origin, it needs to be created anew.

What to me is shown by the persistence of marriages of different types across cultures and religions over time is that for almost as long as you can trace organised human society some form of marriage has existed as a sociological construct. It was traditionally described in a religious/spiritual manner, but then that was the prism through which the whole world was viewed until the Enlightenment (in the West at least). The secular state, for example, is a relatively recent phenomenon. What shape marriage has taken has depended on the time and the place and the requirements and attitudes of a given society more than anything else. This would suggest that Christian definitions of marriage are just one of many that have existed over time and should society change (as it certainly has over the millennia), there is no real reason why the definition of marriage shouldn't change as well.

You could argue that, at least in some countries, the institution of marriage is one of the last hold-outs against a rationalisation or secularisation of society and the current debates have as much to do with continued resistance to a secularisation of society as with the specifics of the homosexual lifestyle.

[SNJ]

It would appear the Romans had same-sex marriages until they went all catholic.

Roman men had sex with woman to procreate and had sex with men for fun.

Yeah, Eve is Adam's beard, to disguise his goat-lovin' side!

I knew it!

[cinder]

The majority of Greek dudes had man on man sex. BFD!!!

[club33az]

I can tell you all that I personally know of 2 married couples who don't love each other. They have pretty much come out and told me so. It's a matter of convenience/laziness.
Can anyone honestly tell me that they have MORE of a right to be married than two men or two women who desperately love each and consider that to be fair?

[refurbmike]

What to me is shown by the persistence of marriages of different types across cultures and religions over time is that for almost as long as you can trace organised human society some form of marriage has existed as a sociological construct. It was traditionally described in a religious/spiritual manner, but then that was the prism through which the whole world was viewed until the Enlightenment (in the West at least). The secular state, for example, is a relatively recent phenomenon. What shape marriage has taken has depended on the time and the place and the requirements and attitudes of a given society more than anything else. This would suggest that Christian definitions of marriage are just one of many that have existed over time and should society change (as it certainly has over the millennia), there is no real reason why the definition of marriage shouldn't change as well.

Yes and no. While Christianity has its own defintion (btw, for the record, I have never said I'm defending the Christian church or its definition of marriage), all religion's (and dare say cultural) definitions have been rooted in some spiritual connection to marriage. So removing that component is more than just another step its evolution.

And I'm not saying culture/society isn't changing. I'm not saying these couples should not have the same legal rights (I don't even know if "marriage" is a right, tbh) as other couples. I'm just suggesting to remove the religious aspect of it and create a new institution that the government can do what it wants with.

You could argue that, at least in some countries, the institution of marriage is one of the last hold-outs against a rationalisation or secularisation of society and the current debates have as much to do with continued resistance to a secularisation of society as with the specifics of the homosexual lifestyle.

You could. I'm definitely not going to argue that the same people who want "prayer in schools" don't want their government touching marriage. Hypocrisy, no?

[Sir_Cliff]

I do completely understand where you're coming from and agree that it would be an evolution of society to just completely separate the religious and 'civil' forms of marriage. But, again, politically I'm not sure that it's any more fesible than simply opening up civil marriage to same sex couples as I can see how that kind of move would be easily harnessed by the religious right to rile up supporters portraying it as the government not only legitimising same sex partnerships but delegitimising Christian partnerships.

Tough waters to navigate.

[refurbmike]

I do completely understand where you're coming from and agree that it would be an evolution of society to just completely separate the religious and 'civil' forms of marriage. But, again, politically I'm not sure that it's any more fesible than simply opening up civil marriage to same sex couples as I can see how that kind of move would be easily harnessed by the religious right to rile up supporters portraying it as the government not only legitimising same sex partnerships but delegitimising Christian partnerships.

Personally, I have a problems with "civil unions". It's the "seperate, but equal" scenario as refered to above. That's why I'd shift things around, making everybody equal 'under the law'.

Tough waters to navigate.

Oh, the religious right is... don't get me started.