(no subject)

[dreamer_easy]

Further to the Rev. Warren's remarks, I'd like to investigate this claim: "For 5,000 years every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman, not just Christianity [but also] Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism."

By specifying that period of time, Warren has in a sense staked a claim on my territory. 5,000 years ago, there was no Christianity, no Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. From the perspective of Sumer and predynastic Egypt, those faiths are mere Johnny-come-latelies. But in the Ancient Near East, there was no religious definition of marriage. It was a civil matter of laws and contracts, mostly regarding the production of children and the disposal of property. Laws regulated virginity, inheritance, child support, support for divorced women, and so on. Funny to think that 5,000 years later, it's these civil rights which gay and lesbian couples are seeking: for the state to recognise and regulate their marriages, and modern versions of the same issues.

Comments

[nyssa-p.livejournal.com]

Wow! How "special" is that guy!?

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

Perhaps what he meant was, "For 5,000 years every single culture* and every single religion has been intolerant of open homosexuality."

Or, in other words, intolerance was good enough then. Why not now?

*Yes, I know that historically there were cultures that tolerated homosexuality. I'm suggesting that this is what he meant, not that what he meant was correct.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Heh. *thumbs up* Given he's also reported as saying the majority of Americans agree with him, I think it's a case of argumentum ad populem gone apeshit. "Everyone EVER agrees with me!!!"

[hnpcc]

every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman, not just Christianity [but also] Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism.

Just the one man and one woman? Bullshit. And the definition of "woman" is pretty bloody loose at times too. 8 years old is not a "woman" no matter how married she is.

[outsdr.livejournal.com]

By specifying that period of time, Warren has in a sense staked a claim on my territory.

It's almost like your entire life has been in preparation for just this moment.*

(Almost because a TARDIS hasn't materialized yet!)


*This is actually what I thought when I read the first sentence.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Oh hell, I'm Princess Astra. *metamorphoses into a piece of plastic and has done with it*

[outsdr.livejournal.com]

Which means TomDoc gets to touch you with his wand...

[kelemvor.livejournal.com]

Wow. This guy sounds like he'd make a good prophet for sgloomi's Hollow Gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_Diplomacy)!
"The Hollow Gods? They've always been here!"
"I suspect that they've only 'always' been here for the last 20 years..."

[meljane.livejournal.com]

Wow reading that article really shows how marriage has changed so much and I think that things looked alot better many centuries ago compared to the way things are now *sigh*

[alisoneales.livejournal.com]

gay and lesbian couples

*cough* and bisexuals...

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Oh, I take your point. That really should've read "same-sex couples".

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

In stating that there was no religious definition of marriage, you might be postulating a civil-religious divide which did not exist at the time. Contract law was well established back then, but religion was pretty haphazzard from generation to generation. There wasn't really the concept of "secular leadership" the way we now understand it - city-states and regions had their official religions and all followed them as a matter of course.

Certainly by the time of Mosaic law, you have religious mandated family law (there's lots about how divorce works, etc).

As for the civil rights which you enumerate, some US states have created "civil union" relationships which specify all of them. Warren himself had advocated for the ability of two people of the same sex to enter into a civil union. That has not apparently been adequate - the word "marriage" appears to mean substantially more than just a collection of specific property rights (c.f. the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision).

I think that some of what is at issue here is the difference between the denotation and the connotations of the word "marriage."

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Good point about the civil-religious difference. (I wanted to mention in my OP that marriage in Islam is considered a secular matter rather than a sacrament; but, as with Judaism, there's a certain overlap between the sacred and the profane when it comes to the law.) So the distinction in ancient times was not as sharp as it is now; but at the same time, nor was religion as codified and doctrinaire. There was no Revealed Truth, there were a lot of contradictions and overlaps which were quite happily accepted; theology seems to have been more a matter of poetry and narrative than scholarly thinkage. Religion was just a given part of life, a set of practices, rather than something about which to have violent disagreements.

I think you're right that part of the debate is confusion over what we mean when we say "marriage"; but in the case of California, married people have rights which people in domestic partnerships do not. TBH, after reading and listening to Warren's statements, I'm not at all clear on whether he supports civil unions or not. This may be because he's a good politician, or because he has no idea himself what his opinion is.

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

Okay, I read the of the differences list over at Wikipedia, and I'd hardly call any of those distinctions worth a fight - are there really folks who are trying to enter into non-resident domestic partnerships? But in any case, those are nits - the real meat of the question of the word "marriage" itself rather than any specific rights or obligations which are connoted thereby.

I think that a reasonable argument can be made that the word should be re-defined. However, that argument does actually need to be made: I don't see very many people attempting to persuade, and I would certainly say that the burden of proof should rest with those who want something to change, not with those who want the status quo.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

IDK, man - that state health insurance must mean an awful lot if you're not cashed up. Say, come to think of it, if Jon and I had been trying to get a California domestic partnership rather than a Maryland marriage, we'd've been up the creek. IMHO, only when a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or what-have-you is legally equivalent to "marriage" are the connotations of that word really the issue - in fact, some gay folks would rather not call it "marriage"; they just want their rights. Keep in mind that Prop 8's opponents argued that gay marriage would harm society, not that same sex couples should have the same rights but use a different term.