Same-Sex Marriage/Same-Sex Family

JURIST - Forum: Same-Sex Marriage/Same-Sex Family

Same-Sex Marriage/Same-Sex Family


JURIST Guest Columnist Douglas NeJaime of UCLA School of Law says that the California same-sex marriage ruling is not merely about the right to marry the person one loves, but it is also about accommodating the demographic reality of lesbians and gay men who commit to one another, raise children, and form families...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The California Supreme Court recently became the second state high court to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Although the court reached the same result as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, it did so based on radically different reasoning. While the Massachusetts court conceptualized marriage in terms of self-fulfillment, the California court focused on the relationships formed through marriage, positioning marriage as about others.

In its 2003 landmark decision, the Massachusetts court focused on the individuals in the relationship, making marriage about the self. As the court put it, “[b]ecause it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.”

The California court, on the other hand, concentrated on the familial relationships embodied by marriage and society’s interest in those relationships. The court carefully identified the “substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own – and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family.” To the court, the issue before it was not merely one about marriage – the relationship between two adults seeking self-fulfillment – but was also, and more centrally, one about family – the supportive kinship networks among adults and children. Indeed, Chief Justice George’s majority opinion used the word “family” almost 150 times. The claim to marriage by lesbians and gay men had transformed from the individualistic, self-defining right that carried the day in Massachusetts in 2003 to the more far-reaching, communitarian, family-based right that prevailed in California in 2008.

What had changed? Rhetoric and reality.

The Massachusetts court rejected social conservative arguments based on notions of the optimal husband-wife, father-mother household. The California court went further, actually reconfiguring those arguments to support same-sex couples. While social conservative groups in the California litigation argued in favor of restrictions on marriage based on the significance of families and children, this exact rationale served as the basis for the court’s decision against the marriage restriction. “Family values,” it seems, have been neutered, and the rhetoric of “family values” has switched sides.

The court’s new focus on the family was underscored by a novel argument made by the state of California. The state, including the Attorney General and the Governor, attempted to divest the name “marriage” of its symbolic qualities, arguing that no difference exists between marriage and domestic partnership. In fact, the state argued that California could do away with the term “marriage” altogether, stripping it from the relationships of different-sex couples. The court, however, rejected the state’s arguments, agreeing instead with both the gay rights groups and the social conservative groups as to the importance of the status of marriage and its significance for family relationships. The state, it seems, was missing the point – family.

The court comprehensively reconfigured the notion of family so as not merely to accommodate but actually celebrate the relationships formed between same-sex couples and between those couples and their children. First, the court established that when two people commit to one another and rely on each other for mutual support, they form a family that is socially vital and worthy of official recognition. The court explained that a core element of the fundamental right to marry “is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships.” By forming relationships characterized by mutual commitment and support, same-sex couples are serving as productive members of society and furthering the societal interest in family stability.

Next, the court situated parenting and children – significant components of “family values” discourse – as gay-positive. As the court declared, society “has an overriding interest in the welfare of children, and the role marriage plays in facilitating a stable family setting in which children may be raised by two loving parents unquestionably furthers the welfare of children and society.” The mother-father family had become the two-parent family, and children had become central players in the families of same-sex couples.

At the same time that gay rights advocates and the court itself appropriated “family values” discourse to the benefit of same-sex couples, the rhetorical move reflects a more grounded factual recognition of the lives of many lesbians and gay men. They form families, they raise children, and they will continue to do so regardless of the outcome of marriage litigation. As Chief Justice George pointed out in his opinion, the Williams Institute has documented that at the time of the 2000 census, same-sex couples in California were raising more than 70,000 children. Indeed, the Chief Justice noted that, according to the Williams Institute, almost 30% of same-sex couples in California were raising children.

The picture of the gay and lesbian population documented by the Williams Institute, and recognized by the court, is a far cry from caricatured images of single, swinging gays living in urban enclaves, far from children and respectable families. The court’s decision is not merely about the right to marry the person whom one loves, but it is also about a realistic, practical accommodation of the demographic reality of the lives of lesbians and gay men, who are committing to one another, raising children, and forming families.


Douglas NeJaime is the Williams Institute Law Teaching Fellow at UCLA School of Law

Why the California Supreme Court decision granting marriage can withstand legal scrutiny

Gay Opinion Blog: Why the California Supreme Court decision granting marriage can withstand legal scrutiny

May 27, 2008
Chris Johnson

This article by HRC Legal Director Lara Schwartz on the California Supreme Court marriage decision was originally published by Legal Times (Click here to download the PDF ):

Last week the California Supreme Court rolled in a 121-page blackboard and taught Americans a lesson in bread-and-butter constitutional principles.

The court ruled that the state could not constitutionally maintain a legal distinction between gay and lesbian couples and their heterosexual counterparts. Noting that marriage has long been considered a fundamental right, the court restated the bedrock constitutional principle that in order to deny access to a fundamental right, not only must the state have a compelling interest but the denial must be necessary to achieve that interest. The court also concluded that crafting separate but purportedly equal legal statuses for families headed by gay and straight couples violates the state’s equal protection clause, in part because marriage alone gives the utmost dignity and respect to a family.

The state cannot deny a fundamental right absent a compelling interest. The state cannot create distinctions in legal status among classifications of people absent a compelling interest.

These same principles have laid the foundation for hundreds of state and federal cases in the past several decades. By the conclusion of Con­sti­tu­tional Law I, every law student is familiar with them.

Yet critics of the May 15 decision are saying that it is a radical departure from prior law. It is not. It is simply a departure from prior resistance to acknowledging that gay people are equal to everyone else.

If gay people — and the families that thousands in California have created, nurtured, and loved — were not equal to their heterosexual neighbors, then a constitutional mandate of equal protection and fundamental rights could be considered a departure from the settled principles the court claimed to espouse. But once you understand — as the Amer­i­can Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and every mainstream social welfare, mental health, and children’s welfare group have done — that gay and lesbian couples love each other as much, live as well, parent as well, and support each other as responsibly as anyone else, In re Marriage Cases becomes the easiest Constitutional Law exam answer ever: Apply strict scrutiny, and place all citizens on equal footing with one another.

IN JUDICIAL HANDS

The critics of the California decision are therefore wrong when they argue that the court read a right to “gay marriage” into the state constitution or redefined what marriage is. The court did not create a new right, but rather recognized that a previously excluded group of people possessed an already existing right. Coming to this conclusion simply required the justices to conclude that there is nothing about gay people that disqualifies them from the rights guaranteed to all citizens of California by the state constitution.

Critics have also accused the court of usurping the power of the legislature and the people to determine whether gay and lesbian couples should be considered equal under state marriage laws. This argument is both politically inaccurate and legally incorrect.

Before the court issued its decision last week, the California Legislature had twice passed a bill legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. Citing the previous ballot initiative and the pending court challenge to the initiative, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger twice refused to sign the bill, saying that either the voters or the courts would decide the issue. In other words, the legislative branch attempted to act, and the executive deferred instead to the judiciary.

The political argument isn’t passing muster in Massachusetts either. After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared that the state could not bar same-sex marriage in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003), the state legislature failed to pass an amendment reversing the decision. In the next election cycle, the voters overwhelmingly re-elected legislators who voted against that amendment and replaced several anti-marriage-equality members with supporters of marriage equality. Following the will of the electorate, the state legislature has reinforced the court’s ruling.

Yet some still find it convenient to assail judicial action in favor of same-sex marriage as somehow unauthorized, because that garners suspicion among laypeople.

The charge that the California court has usurped political power is also flawed as a matter of law. When the court acknowledges — as the facts demand —that gay and lesbian couples are equal to any others, it is both nonsensical and unconstitutional to demand that those couples pull together a political majority before they will actually be treated equally. Nowhere in the California Constitution can you find a gay exception to fundamental rights. To write such an exception into the document is results-oriented and, to use the phrase favored by critics of the decision, “activist.”

WHAT IS NEW

If In re Marriage Cases represents an embrace of, rather than a departure from, well-settled constitutional principles, then why does it still feel so new? And why, after years of outright losses since Goodridge and halfway decisions in which courts fabricated gay exceptions to the nonmajoritarian principle of equal rights in order to “punt” to legislatures, did the California Supreme Court rule as it did?

No matter how pure and enduring the constitutional principles that direct its decisions, no court operates in a vacuum. As Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote, courts “should not be ignorant as judges of what we know as men.” The justices in California know gay people and their families. And knowing them, the court could not possibly conclude that excluding them from equal treatment under law is necessary to further any state interest.

Four years after Massachusetts granted the first marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in the United States, we know that doing so did not “rewrite” the marriage laws, change the character of marriage, or affect in any way the state’s interest in promoting marriage as a stable institution for nurturing children and providing social and financial stability.

For opponents of gay and lesbian equality, it is uncomfortable — and strategically unwise — to concede that the case did not turn on a novel or inappropriate interpretation of the law, but rather a recognition of facts that conflict with their own views and values. These people believe that gay people must audition before the majority to secure their human rights because their actions or very nature render them unfit to claim these rights as people.

That is a political decision. Whether gay and lesbian families are guaranteed equal dignity under law is not.

2015Place.com: California Marriage opposition names and numbers

2015Place.com: California Marriage opposition names and numbers

The California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, provides campaign finance information online.

The National Organization for Marriage is required to disclose contributions.

We should all know who our oppressors are.

List as of May 25, 2008 11:40 AM, Pacific Time:

JOSHUA BAKER, MANCHESTER, MO, 63011, BIOCOLD ENVIRONMENTAL, $50,000.00
LARRY SMITH, NEWPORT BEACH, CA, 92660, MHI REAL CO., $25,000.00
JUSTIN CASTER, EL CAJON, CA, 92019, ACTOR, $9,100.00
BRIAN CASTER, EL CAJON, CA, 92019, CASTER FAMILY ENTERPRISES, $9,100.00
BRIAN CASTER, EL CAJON, CA, 92019, CASTER FAMILY ENTERPRISES, $10,000.00
CHA CHA CASTER, EL CAJON, CA, 92019,NOT EMPLOYED, $9,100.00
CRAIG CASTER, EL CAJON, CA, 92019,FAMILY DISCIPLECHIP MINISTRIES, $9,100.00
CHRISTINA CASTER, EL CAJON, CA, 92019, ACTOR, $9,100.00
NICK CASTER, EL CAJON, CA, 92019,FAMILY DISCIPLESHIP MINISTRIES, $9,100.00
BARBARA CASTER, EL CAJON, CA, 92021,NOT EMPLOYED, $9,100.00
CANDICE CASTER, EL CAJON, CA, 92019,NOT EMPLOYED, $9,100.00
TERRY CASTER, SAN DIEGO, CA, 92120, CASTER FAMILY ENTERPRISES, $10,000.00 TERRY CASTER, SAN DIEGO, CA, 92120, CASTER FAMILY ENTERPRISES, $62,500.00
TERRY CASTER, SAN DIEGO, CA, 92120, CASTER FAMILY ENTERPRISES, $100,000.00
GARY DAVIDSON, ESCONDIDO, CA, 92029, CASTER FAMILY ENTERPRISES, $9,100.00 MECHELE KREMENSKY, EL CAJON, CA, 92019,NOT EMPLOYED, $9,100.00
KENNETH KREMENSKY, EL CAJON, CA, 92019,NOT EMPLOYED, $9,100.00
CALIF. STATE COUNCIL KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, FONTANA, CA, 92335, $25,000.00
KELLY BURT, SAN DIEGO, CA, 92128, TRES-DAC, $10,000.00
MARGOT KYD, POWAY, CA, 92064, SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC, $5,000
TOM KYD, POWAY, CA, 92064, CATHOLIC EXCHANGE, $15,000.00
GERALD SIMONSEN, POWAY, CA, 92064, RM PROPERTIES, $50,000.00
DANIEL MULVHILL, SAN DIEGO, CA, 92186, PACIFIC SOUTHWET MORTGAGE, $20,000.00
ROBERT HOEHN, CARLSBAD, CA, 92009, HOEHN MOTORS, $25,000.00
RITA SOLOMAN-DAVIS, EL CAJON, CA, 92019, SOUTHLAND ENVELOPE, $5,000.00
KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS HEADQUARTERS, NEW HAVEN, CT, 06510, $250,000.00
ROGER BENSON, LA JOLLA, CA, 92037, NOT EMPLOYED, $50,000.00
MICHAEL FARGUSON, LA JOLLA, CA, 92037, FARGUSON INVESTMENTS, $5,000.00
T.B. PENICK & SONS, INC., SAN DIEGO, CA, 92121, $20,000.00
INSTITUTE FOR MARRIAGE AND PUBLIC POLICY, MCLEAN, VA, 22102, $15,000.00
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES S. LIMANDRI, RANCHO SANTA FE, CA, 92067, $10,000.00
ADAMO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CO., LAKESIDE, CA, 92040, $25,000.00
DOUG MANCHESTER, SAN DIEGO, CA, 92101, MANCHESTER FINANCIAL GROUP, $125,000.00
PETER LEPARULO, SAN DIEGO, CA, 92121, NOVATEL, $10,001.00

Times Poll: Californians narrowly reject gay marriage - Los Angeles Times

Times Poll: Californians narrowly reject gay marriage - Los Angeles Times

Voters also back a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions, a new Times/KTLA survey shows.
By Cathleen Decker
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 23, 2008

By bare majorities, Californians reject the state Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriages and back a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at the November ballot that would outlaw such unions, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found.

But the survey also suggested that the state is moving closer to accepting nontraditional marriages, which could create openings for supporters of same-sex marriage as the campaign unfolds.

More than half of Californians said gay relationships were not morally wrong, that they would not degrade heterosexual marriages and that all that mattered was that a relationship be loving and committed, regardless of gender.

Overall, the proportion of Californians who back either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples has remained fairly constant over the years. But the generational schism is pronounced. Those under 45 were less likely to favor a constitutional amendment than their elders and were more supportive of the court's decision to overturn the state's current ban on gay marriage. They also disagreed more strongly than their elders with the notion that gay relationships threatened traditional marriage.

The results of the survey set up an intriguing question for the fall campaign: Will the younger, more live-and-let-live voters mobilized by likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama doom the gay marriage ban? Or will conservatives drawn to the polls by the amendment boost the odds for the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain?

Either way, the poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters. But because ballot measures on controversial topics often lose support during the course of a campaign, strategists typically want to start out well above the 50% support level.

"Although the amendment to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage is winning by a small majority, this may not bode well for the measure," said Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus.

The politically volatile issue leaped into the forefront last week after the court made its judgment in a case that stemmed from San Francisco's unsuccessful effort in 2004 to allow gay marriage in the city. The court's decision, on a 4-3 vote by judges largely appointed by Republican governors, came eight years after Californians overwhelmingly banned gay marriage through a ballot measure, Proposition 22.

The court's verdict threw the issue forward until November, when Californians are expected to be asked to amend the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. An affirmative vote on the amendment would reinstate the ban and lead to more litigation over the issue.

Before the court took action, opponents of same-sex marriage already had submitted more than 1 million signatures to the secretary of state's office to put the matter on the November ballot. Secretary of State Debra Bowen has said she will determine its fate by mid-June, but the backers are believed to have collected enough signatures to qualify.

Asking for a delay

Thursday, supporters of the proposed amendment asked the court to place its decision on hold until after the election. Failure to do so "risks legal havoc and uncertainty," lawyers for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund argued, noting that same-sex marriages entered into between now and November would be under a legal cloud if voters approved the ban. Court experts, however, say it is unlikely the justices would agree to such a lengthy delay in implementing their ruling.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has vetoed two bills sanctioning gay marriage, has said that he respects the court's decision and that he will not support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Californians were split on his stance, with 45% agreeing and 46% disagreeing.

The governor, who in his nearly five years in office has often butted heads with his GOP colleagues, was once again on the opposite side of most in his party: Nearly 7 in 10 Republicans disagreed with his views on the court decision and the amendment.

Becky Espinoza of Kerman, an agricultural town west of Fresno, said that if the amendment made the ballot, she would vote for it. But she acknowledged some ambivalence about the matter coming before voters at all.

"I just don't believe a man and a man should be married," said the 57-year-old Republican. "How can I put this -- it's just not right. I was brought up very old-fashioned."

Even within her own family, however, there are differences of opinion. A younger daughter, she said, feels "there's nothing wrong with that."

"To kids nowadays, it's like 'Oh well.' Maybe it is 'Oh well.' They see it. We didn't see it. It was one of those in-the-closet things."

On the opposite side is Lena Neal of Perris, who said she supported the court's decision and would vote against an amendment. Neal, a Democrat, based her views on the experiences of an elderly family member, who she said was part of a decades-long same-sex partnership. When one of them entered the hospital, she said, the other was not allowed to visit -- that benefit was restricted to family members.

"It's their right," she said of gay marriage. "They're humans."

Indeed, the poll found that views on gay marriage were greatly influenced by personal connections. Of those who said they knew a friend, a family member or a co-worker who was gay, nearly half approved of the court's ruling -- more than twice the proportion among those who said they were not acquainted with a gay person.

The divide was as stark when it came to the proposed constitutional amendment: 70% of voters who said they did not know a gay person would vote for it, a position taken by just 49% of voters who said they knew a gay person.

The poll, under Pinkus' direction, interviewed 834 Californians, including 705 registered voters, on Tuesday and Wednesday. The margin of sampling error is 3 percentage points in either direction overall and 4 points for registered voters. Margins were larger for demographic subgroups.

The poll found the state polarized when it came to gay marriage. In most surveys, majority views are somewhat ambivalent -- but on this issue they were sharply drawn. More than 4 in 10 Californians said they strongly disapproved of the court's decision, while almost 3 in 10 strongly approved. Smaller groups described their views as lukewarm.

Generally, the poll found consistency between views on the court decision and the proposed amendment. Overall, Californians opposed the court's view by a 52%-41% gap. The strongest opposition came from Republicans and self-described conservatives. Married respondents, those without college degrees, senior citizens, white evangelical Christians and those in suburban Southern California were also strongly opposed.

Those same groups were also among the strongest backers of the proposed amendment.

Most supportive of the court decision were liberals -- more than 7 in 10 of whom favored the ruling -- Democratic men and Democratic women, whites with college degrees and Bay Area residents.

Majority support -- if barely -- came from the two political groups whose backing generally spells success in California: The state's largest party, Democrats, backed it by a 55%-39% margin, and the fastest-growing political group, independents, supported it 51% to 40%.

Yet support for the ruling did not necessarily lead to opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment, and vice versa. Democrats and independents narrowly backed the amendment despite their support for the court action. Democratic men favored the ruling but were split on the amendment. Democratic women, meanwhile, approved of both the court decision and the amendment.

Effect on the election?

The interaction between the amendment and the presidential election is difficult to divine six months from election day. Among the reasons is that the court put itself at odds with the candidates -- neither Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Obama of Illinois, nor Republican McCain, a senator from Arizona, has backed gay marriage. All have sided instead with civil unions that would ensure benefits for same-sex partners.

For the candidates, the confluence of the gay marriage issue and the presidential election represents risk. For the Democratic nominee, the party's traditional allegiance with the gay community could lead to pressure on the candidate to embrace gay marriage -- perhaps alienating more moderate voters here and elsewhere.

McCain, meanwhile, will be pinched between the party's religious base, which is strongly in favor of the amendment, and the independent voters who generally recoil from social issue battles but whom McCain needs in order to win.

Some leeway

The poll suggested that the candidates may have a little leeway: Only 1 in 4 registered voters said they would vote only for a candidate who agreed with their own position on marriage. Almost 6 in 10 said they could vote for a candidate with whom they disagreed -- suggesting that the issue was far from the top of most voters' agendas.

Responding to a separate question, only 10% of registered voters said that gay marriage was the most important issue facing the state, although more than 5 in 10 voters characterized it as important, just not the most important. Another third of voters said it was not important at all.

Among those who felt it was the most important, more than 6 in 10 were conservatives or those who consider themselves part of the Republican religious base. They were overwhelmingly voting for McCain, the poll found.

But those who felt it was either not important, or not the most important issue facing California, were siding with a Democratic candidate over McCain.

cathleen.decker@latimes.com

Calif. Episcopal Church to Perform Same-Sex Weddings | Christianpost.com

Calif. Episcopal Church to Perform Same-Sex Weddings | Christianpost.com

An Episcopal church in California plans to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples beginning mid-June.

Mon, May. 26, 2008 Posted: 11:53:59 AM EST


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Episcopal church in California plans to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples beginning mid-June.

All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, one of the largest congregations in the denomination, adopted last Thursday the "Resolution on Marriage Equality" in response to a California Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay "marriage."

The 125-year-old congregation "will treat equally all couples presenting themselves for the rite of marriage," said the Rev. Canon J. Edwin Bacon Jr. in an announcement.

"I am honored to serve a church where the leadership demonstrates such stirring courage to move beyond lip service about embodying God's inclusive love to actually committing our faith community to the practice of marriage equality," Bacon commented, according to Episcopal News Service.

On May 15 in a 4-3 ruling, the state high court struck down a ban that prohibited same-sex couples from "marrying." The justices ruled that “domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage."

After the high court cleared the way for same-sex "marriage" in a decision that was a blow to Christian and pro-family groups, churches were faced with the pressing question of whether they must recognize and officiate gay weddings.

California has an estimated 92,000 same-sex couples.

Episcopal Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles is establishing a task force to help clarify the impact of the court's decision on local congregations.

While many bishops in The Episcopal Church support the rights of gays and lesbians, the denomination has not "yet made" the decision to bless same-sex unions, Bishop Jim Mathes of San Diego noted.

"We are in the midst of a challenging but vital conversation about holy relationships in this diocese and indeed across the [Anglican] Communion," Mathes said.

The Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism, had passed a resolution in September 2007 saying they will "exercise restraint" in authorizing public rites of the blessing of same-sex unions. Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori had made it clear, however, that the church will not retreat from the "full inclusion" of gays and lesbians but is willing to "pause" as the Anglican Communion remains divided on the issue of homosexuality.

Meanwhile, Bacon of All Saints Church believes the latest pro-gay move by his congregation "aligns" them with "the Scriptures' mandate to make God's love tangible by 'doing justice and loving mercy.'"

But Richard J. Mouw, president of the conservative Protestant Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena and a friend to Bacon, says All Saints' decision to perform same-sex weddings is "a very serious mistake."

By linking gay "marriage" to issues of "justice and mercy" rather than moral standards, All Saints restricts dialogue with people who have "legitimate questions" about their definition of marriage, Mouw said, according to Pasadena Star News .

"It should be clear to everyone that he's (Bacon) out of step with his global Anglican communion and fostering what many of us sincerely believe is a real threat to the social fabric," Mouw noted.

The global Anglican Communion maintains that homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture.


Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter

ReligiousLeft.us: VIDEO: Jesse Ventura weighs in on Gay Marriage

ReligiousLeft.us: VIDEO: Jesse Ventura weighs in on Gay Marriage

Saturday, May 24, 2008


Recently The Verdict with Dan Abrams (MSNBC) discussed Gay Marriage.
It shows clips of McCain talking with Ellen and Jesse Ventura speaking to Pat Buchanan.
Pat Buchanan got an ear full!
Go Jesse.

ReligiousLeft.us: Marriage (conjugal)

ReligiousLeft.us: Marriage (conjugal)

Same-sex marriage through the Ages


Many would have us believe marriage is an unchanged stable foundation of society. Perhaps we should look at marriage a bit closer.

The first *institutional* codes for marriage were written in the Hammurabi Code (1795 – 1750 BC).

The idea of 'romantic' love leading to marriage is a recent creation of Western civilization. Previously marriage was a matter of economics.

American Puritan families were living off the land and self-sufficient. Parents kept control over their children, not only by handing down the family craft and source of income, but by dowries and inheritance of the family lands. Kinship ties through intermarriage between first cousins and even between brothers and sisters were used to cement political and economic relationships. [link]

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public. [link]

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed (in 1563) that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, as well as the role of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era. [link] [link] [link]

In Catholicism, the Council of Trent made the validity of marriage dependent upon its being performed before an ordained member of the clergy and two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life." [link]

In many jurisdictions, the civil marriage ceremony may take place during the religious marriage ceremony, although they are theoretically and legally distinct. In most American states, the marriage may be officiated by a priest, minister, rabbi or other religious authority, and in such a case the religious authority acts simultaneously as an agent of the state. In some countries, such as France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Argentina, Japan and Russia, it is necessary to be married by the state separate from (usually before) any religious ceremony, with the state ceremony being the legally binding one. Some states allow civil marriages in circumstances which are not allowed by many religions, such as same-sex marriages or civil unions. [link]

Polygamous marriage, in which a person takes more than one spouse, is accepted in a majority of global social traditions, though it is far less common than monogamy. Africa has the highest rate of polygamy in the world. In Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple. [link]

In 2004, the American Anthropological Association released this statement:
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.