12 thoughts on “The existing constitutional ammendment regarding the definition of marriage”

  5. See your point, but the anthropologist in me would argue that, cross-culturally, marriage is primarily a social institution, secondarily religious. To me, it’s like saying funerals are religious institutions. But marriage has a more sociobiological basis.

    These fundamental socio-cultural practices can’t necessary be planted squarely in the realm of “religion.”

    On the legal note, I don’t think marriage benefits are any more unconstitutional than benefits given to senior citizens. But I know poop about Constitutional law, so.

    And, like, so long as everyone is given an equal opportunity to obtain those benefits (reach old age, marry whoever), I don’t see how it violates civil liberties. That’s what I would like to see – equal oppurtunity to get those benefits, not taking away benefits from everyone.

  6. See your point, but the anthropologist in me would argue that, cross-culturally, marriage is primarily a social institution, secondarily religious. To me, it’s like saying funerals are religious institutions. But marriage has a more sociobiological basis.

    These fundamental socio-cultural practices can’t necessary be planted squarely in the realm of “religion.”

    On the legal note, I don’t think marriage benefits are any more unconstitutional than benefits given to senior citizens. But I know poop about Constitutional law, so.

    And, like, so long as everyone is given an equal opportunity to obtain those benefits (reach old age, marry whoever), I don’t see how it violates civil liberties. That’s what I would like to see – equal oppurtunity to get those benefits, not taking away benefits from everyone.

  7. Again, she missed the point.

    Sigh.

    Also, based on my research, I can’t find any cultures where the marriage ceremony is not an essentially religious ceremony. I admit freely that my research is not complete, and that I’m open to looking at sources you have of information about cultures where the origins of marriage are clearly not religious in nature.

    But even here in America, non-religious modern views on marriage are based somewhat around the illegal laws that were made about marriage in the first place.

    But it’s silly to try to argue my point, since it’s so clear to people who understand it, and so unlikely that any words that come out of me will get through to you the way I’d like them to.

  8. Again, she missed the point.

    Sigh.

    Also, based on my research, I can’t find any cultures where the marriage ceremony is not an essentially religious ceremony. I admit freely that my research is not complete, and that I’m open to looking at sources you have of information about cultures where the origins of marriage are clearly not religious in nature.

    But even here in America, non-religious modern views on marriage are based somewhat around the illegal laws that were made about marriage in the first place.

    But it’s silly to try to argue my point, since it’s so clear to people who understand it, and so unlikely that any words that come out of me will get through to you the way I’d like them to.

  9. I’m having a bit of a hard time finding information on what marriage originally was proposed for. Some Greeks are saying the origin of marriage was actually that the bride was a gift from another family (although it doesn’t specify about why there was a gift exchanged), or a bride could be won or stolen for a companion, or marriage could result from sexual attraction.

    I’d guess that before people were organized a mating resulting in monogomy was probably primarily for having children and companionship. It would seem to me that after things became a bit more organized in the world that marriage was actually to merge families and properties. There’s that whole bit about the dowry of the bride needing to be enough to buy a marriage.

    It seems that originally marriage was a legal institution, a contract of sorts. Women were treated as property for quite some time, I do know. And marriage was often not about love or about choice.

    So it might seem that marriage actually should be regulated by the government.

  10. I’m having a bit of a hard time finding information on what marriage originally was proposed for. Some Greeks are saying the origin of marriage was actually that the bride was a gift from another family (although it doesn’t specify about why there was a gift exchanged), or a bride could be won or stolen for a companion, or marriage could result from sexual attraction.

    I’d guess that before people were organized a mating resulting in monogomy was probably primarily for having children and companionship. It would seem to me that after things became a bit more organized in the world that marriage was actually to merge families and properties. There’s that whole bit about the dowry of the bride needing to be enough to buy a marriage.

    It seems that originally marriage was a legal institution, a contract of sorts. Women were treated as property for quite some time, I do know. And marriage was often not about love or about choice.

    So it might seem that marriage actually should be regulated by the government.

  11. According to a trusted source and some further research before I remembered I should have just gone to the trusted source in the first place, I have come back to clarify my point from the initial post we are commenting on here, with some quotes:

    “Married couples usually seek social sanction of their society, and most societies require official approval of a religious or civil body. Sociologists thus distinguish between a marriage ceremony conducted under the auspices of a religion and a state-sanctioned civil marriage. In many jurisdictions the civil marriage ceremony may take place during the religious marriage ceremony, although they are two distinct entities.”

    For purposes of clarifying my original post with reference to this quote from the above linked site, when I said “Marriage” I was referring to the religious union, not the civil union.

    As is common in the current popular discourse on the subject; to refer to the religious union as “marriage” and the civil union as a “civil union”.

    SO.

    To quote my post, “There should be no laws anywhere in America regarding marriage, no laws giving benefits nor laws levying costs nor laws in any other way treating people differently based on whether they have performed the religious ceremony of marriage or not. It is unconstitutional.” – I believe this to be true, when the consideration is based upon the definition above of a “marriage” being the religious union, a separate union from the civil union.

    Which I felt was implicit in my post.

    In fact, I felt that my post clearly intimated that the government, in getting its nose out of marriage, should be focused on making its unconstitutional laws regarding marriage to be reframed where necessary to refer to civil unions.

    Which [civil unions] our current and apparently renewed President has said he believes should be allowed for same-sex couples.

    I know a couple of you understood that was what I have been saying all along. I hope this makes it clear for the rest of you.

    Do you get it NOW?

  12. According to a trusted source and some further research before I remembered I should have just gone to the trusted source in the first place, I have come back to clarify my point from the initial post we are commenting on here, with some quotes:

    “Married couples usually seek social sanction of their society, and most societies require official approval of a religious or civil body. Sociologists thus distinguish between a marriage ceremony conducted under the auspices of a religion and a state-sanctioned civil marriage. In many jurisdictions the civil marriage ceremony may take place during the religious marriage ceremony, although they are two distinct entities.”

    For purposes of clarifying my original post with reference to this quote from the above linked site, when I said “Marriage” I was referring to the religious union, not the civil union.

    As is common in the current popular discourse on the subject; to refer to the religious union as “marriage” and the civil union as a “civil union”.

    SO.

    To quote my post, “There should be no laws anywhere in America regarding marriage, no laws giving benefits nor laws levying costs nor laws in any other way treating people differently based on whether they have performed the religious ceremony of marriage or not. It is unconstitutional.” – I believe this to be true, when the consideration is based upon the definition above of a “marriage” being the religious union, a separate union from the civil union.

    Which I felt was implicit in my post.

    In fact, I felt that my post clearly intimated that the government, in getting its nose out of marriage, should be focused on making its unconstitutional laws regarding marriage to be reframed where necessary to refer to civil unions.

    Which [civil unions] our current and apparently renewed President has said he believes should be allowed for same-sex couples.

    I know a couple of you understood that was what I have been saying all along. I hope this makes it clear for the rest of you.

    Do you get it NOW?

Leave a Reply