Agit8r
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2010
- 12,141
- 2,209
You show a lack of knowledge of the subject at hand. Let me help you out with that:
* * *
That some ascribe civil marriage a history dating back to Adam and his "wife" Eve, is absurdly laughable. The modern blend of civil recognition coupled with ecclesiastical solemnization dates back to 1753 when Hardwicke's Marriage act was passed. Before then--under the English Common Law, from which we obviously derive much of our legal tradition--marriage was either solemnized or not--and often not for the peasantry. Such became a civil matter only when it became the subject of a legal dispute, which called for evidence establishing a history of "habit and repute" such as witnesses testimony. This recognition by a civil magistrate being the basis for marital law then is our tradition as an Anglophone nation, one should think.
The tradition of "marriage" ascribed to Christianity hardly seems relevant to a discussion of civil law (the separation between the ecclesiastical and civil laws being older than the United States--and affirmed in no uncertain terms by our Constitution), but it is an interesting study nonetheless. The lore and legends of the Hebrews, which form the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, contain none of the precise terms that we use today to describe a husband, wife, or marriage (as noun or verb). In four instances the Old Testament uses the word "ba'al" (Anglicization of letters approximate) to refer to a husband. Two of these are in reference to women taken as plunder of war, as that word means "master". In the many other instances of "husband" the word translated ("iysh") means literally "man," as it does when the same word is used to refer to men or mankind generally. The same is true of "wife" ("Nashiym") meaning precisely "a woman" or plural "women" except in instances referring to Babylonian "queens" ("Shegal")--that word deriving from a root meaning to "violate" or "ravage."
The only verbs referring to the act of getting "married" are "chathan" (the father's action) meaning "give away" and "laqach" (the suitor's action) meaning "to take posession". And the Hebrew words that refer to the noun of "marriage" are "ownah" ("to dwell together) and "yashab" ("to dwell" or "abide"), an ironic similarity to the primitive state of civil marriage under the old common law. It would seem then that the "institution of marriage" as we know it, is a product of modernity, rather than ancient tradition of Occident or Orient.
The evolution that marriage has undergone--the franchising of cohabitation within the realm of the state, which now issues licenses, and arbitrates between spouses, and even on behalf of children--can be attributed largely to an economic movement; capitalism. That the laws of marriage had to adapt to include the sound protection of propertied interest among families, as part of a broader system of contract law, was inevitable given the broader distribution of property that free market economies brought. Similarly, it was inevitable that those who take part in the marketplace, but remain disenfranchised from its full benefits, would insist upon equal protection of their property and rights. It would seem that the institution of capitalist marriage could only be aided by this broadening of the franchise, and further, that resistance to it is the prattle of the Luddite.
***
Crackpot Doom Scandal Traditional Marriage
Hi Agit8r
Unlike the poor impression I gave you,
I do trace the shift in marriage laws from the days of MATRIARCHY where women passed property and knowledge from mother to daughter and DIDN'T NEED MARRIAGE to confirm whom their children were to control their lineage.
The mothers KNEW who were their children and heirs naturally.
Then came the stage of PATRIARCHY and power passed from fathers to son.
UNLIKE women, Men CANNOT TELL if their children are theirs unless they ENFORCE
laws controlling women and children as "property of the estate" and enforce LAWS against ADULTERY
to CONTROL OTHER MEN from affecting their family lineage. They have to keep their wives loyal to the husband
in order to control inheritance and "primogeniture" if authority is going to pass from Father to Son.
The control of birthright and thus of women was done through written marriage and property laws,
where the clergy of the church were the literate scribes who were entrusted with these written contracts.
When the people are illiterate, they depend on the church and people in power who keep track and have knowledge
and records of the laws.
Because there was no separation of church and state, the same elders in charge of the church exerted influence
on other realms of power.
the world has long fought wars to separate church from state, and one group from dominating another.
This is the same driving force behind any political revolution from the US breaking from Britain,
the people breaking from the Catholic Authority in Rome, EVERY persona and every culture, nation or identity
eventually seeks to break free and become independent and sovereign, and then when that group breaks down
into smaller groups, they break free until people are free as individuals to associate and represent themselves at will.
We are constantly breaking down larger groups into smaller ones until everyone has self-representation
and self-govt to the degree they want it. Most find a balance between individual and collective authority.
Where we disagree, we end up separating and going under separate policies. This is the story of humanity
and process of life.
So the changes in marriage laws are part of that growing TOWARD independence.
This idea of DEPENDING on govt to manage one's affairs is going the other way.
That is what the argument is about
NOT just about "gay marriage" but INSTITUTING IT THROUGH THE STATE
If you wouldn't want Christianity BANNED that doesn't mean you want it IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE STATE
If you keep Christianity, marriage, etc out of the state, then no problem.
just like the Catholics, Mormons, etc. ANY GROUP can set up their own
social structures, funding, representatives and authority to manage benefits for THEIR MEMBERS.
We don't have to take the Mormon way of managing marriage and benefits
and IMPLEMENT IT THROUGH THE STATE.
You can organize that on your own.
The Democrats need to get serious and use the political influence they have
to organize their own health care and benefits for their members and the battle would already be won by now.
This greed to have public control of other people from other groups does not have to be the issue.
Just set it up for people who agree already, and all those resources could be saved
and invested directly in programs and quit wasting billions of dollars fighting politically to impose programs for everyone.
Democrats I know yell and scream over war spending, and anything else they believe is wasting and costing taxpayer money.
So why not let both parties organize what they do and do not want to fund.
And give them either federal grants or tax breaks to develop the programs that represent their members!
Then they should go about it through the legislative process. We don't need activist county clerks ruling by decree.
Yes Agit8r
And by the SAME token the laws on gay marriage should have gone through the LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. And not depend on the Judicial to write laws for the people.
If the STATES do not have authority to dictate private marriage policies for their entire population, certainly 9 judges in DC have no business deciding private marriage beliefs for the entire nation.
All the Judicial ruling needed to do was declare the BAN unconstitutional
(then charge the state with responsibility for writing laws that accommodate
both beliefs EQUALLY OR ELSE strike down and remove ALL marriage from the state
if this cannot be agreed upon how to make it equally accessible for people of all beliefs.
The Judicial branch does not make decisions for people involving religious or faith-based personal beliefs, but determines if the decisions made as laws are constitutional or not.
Bans on abortion were struck down by "substantive due process and privacy" but it is still up to the legislatures to write out the terms people agree on, and that's where people are stuck
negotiating different beliefs that are both supposed to be equally protected and represented if p public policy state or federal govt is involved since that is public; if it involves beliefs, the state cannot endorse one over the other or it violates First and Fourteenth equal protections.)
The courts did not have consent of the people or Constitutional authority to
establish gay marriage for the people or the states. That is going too far.
There is a difference between removing a ban and then enforcing requirements through the state. Two totally different steps.
The people are still in charge of writing their own contracts for their personal affairs.
This should not be given to the state unless people AGREE.
and clearly from the reaction, not all people agree to give this authority to the state.
We do need to fix this locally through the states,
and write the legislation CORRECTLY.
I agree with you on that, so much I would say the Courts should have
ordered BOTH sides to rewrite the laws and keep it OUT OF THEIR COURT.
The most that is constitutional is saying the court does not have authority
to decide for the people; the ban is unconstitutional as well as imposing
traditional marriage that discriminates against gay marriage. NEITHER side
can discriminate against the other. The state laws need to be neutral, inclusive
and mutually agreed upon to represent ALL people in that state, or else
be struck down and REMOVED if they contain any religious bias ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
The courts should NOT decide one side over the other, or that is violating
the First Amendment anti-establishment clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
equal protections and/or Civil Rights protections against discrimination by creed.
The same laws that protect gays also protect all other religious views from
being imposed upon through the state; and likewise neither should gay beliefs
or policies be implemented through the state any more than other religious faith based beliefs.
Here in WA it was passed by a popular referendum. Why should other states interfere with the obligation of contracts made here?