Supporters of Minnesota gay marriage ban react to New York vote

“without a vote of the people”

So apparently we need referendums on every bill. Does he understand that those legislators were elected by the people?

I thought it was “activist judges” we were supposed to be worried about. Now it’s representational democracy, I guess. Why is this a matter for “the people” to decide?

Suck it up hetero bigots!! Time to read the writing on the wall!! Marriage equality WILL prevail with OR without the vote of the people!! Damn those activist republican legislators in NY!! LMFAO!!

Funny how reiligious leaders think same-sex marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. In reality, heterosexual adultery is more of a threat. Talk about drenched in fear. I thought God called us Christians not to walk in fear? Oh brother!!

Gay marriage is a done deal worldwide. It’s just a matter of time.
Oh, these small-minded bigots and nitwits may win a few battles in the short term, but they’ve lost the war.
Studies shows that young people overwhelmingly support gay marriage worldwide. And countries in Europe, South America, Africa, and Asia have legalized gay marriage–not to mention Canada and Mexico.
Every single anti-gay marriage law and amendment will be repealed or eventually ruled unconstitutional.
The anti-gay marriage bigots all suffer from sexual identity issues and hate themselves.

“This is exactly why we need the constitutional amendment to protect marriage in Minnesota,” said Jason Adkins of the Minnesota Catholic Conference

I can’t seem find the vote totals for Jason Adkins and/or the Minnesota Catholic Conference. Did they win last fall? I don’t recall those names on the ballot so how is it they are making public policy?

Jeff Wilfahrt, Rosemount, MN

I get so tired of the “put it before the people for a vote” nonsense

Do these people think civil rights legislation would have passed if it had been put before a vote? A major purpose of our courts and laws is to protect the minorities among us.

“The Minnesota Family Council, which opposes rights for same-sex couples, said the amendment is needed so legislators don’t legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota.”

Opposes rights for same-sex couples? I didn’t know couples had rights. Please point me to the constitutional language which guarantees ‘couple’s rights’.

Straining language seem to be SOP around here.

Actually, civil rights legislation has been put to a vote, and not always with pretty results. MN voted down black voting rights twice, before finally approving it.

But things evolve. David From (former GWB advisor) explains that the dire predictions made about gay marriage simply aren’t proving true. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/27/frum.gay.marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 is a good read.

The right to marry has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. Government has no business intruding in our personal lives. A Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages would write discrimination into the Constitution.

Children of same-sex couples are penalized by marriage discrimination. More than 1 million children are currently being raised by same-sex couples in the United States, according to the 2000 census. Many lesbian and gay parents, however, are unable to assume full legal parenting rights and responsibilities, and in most states, there is no law guaranteeing a non-custodial, biological or adoptive parent’s visitation rights or requiring child support from such a parent. Without the ability to establish a legal relationship to both parents, these children are left without protections such as Social Security survivor benefits.

Writing discrimination into the constitution, federal or state, is unjust. It singles out a group of people and categorizes them as less than others undeserving of legal and economic protections and second-class citizens. Marriage discrimination subjects same-sex couples to the tyranny of the majority.

The marriage amendment simply defines marriage in the state of Minnesota as between a man and woman. This is the definition of marriage throughout human history. There is no language in the amendment banning gay marriage because marriage isn’t between same-sex couples. The amendment simply acknowledges marriage for what it is.

Currently every citizen can marry a member of the opposite sex in Minnesota. No citizen can marry a member of the same sex.

The US Supreme Court, in Zablocki v. Redhail, acknowledges marriage and its role in society. “It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships.” At the time of this ruling, no same-sex union was even in view. “As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.” The Court acknowledges the purpose of marriage and its fundamental role in society. Nothing here suggests same-sex unions fall under the Court’s view of marriage.

Writing marriage into the constitution is a smart move to protect it from being used as a political tool to force society to ignore the very real differences between heterossexuality and homosexuality, between marriage and same-sex unions.

The only thing un constitutional that is going on right now is the point that we have to vote on civil rights for a minority group.

We have a government where we have elected officials. We do NOT vote on bill that comes across. My right as citizen has been violated, and I am troubled that I am pushed to vote on this matter period.

I will vote though, I will not leave the box empty, if I can right in a HELL no to this amendment I will.

HG, I will tell you again, this is coming from a opposite family home. I live a “conservative” life. I raise my children and I have been with the same person for decades. I have had only one marriage. So has my husband. My husband and I will be voting the same way.

the only social indoctrination going on is from the religious zealots like yourself. I do not follow your religion. I live in this country because I don’t HAVE to.

you scream that its un natural, all the medical books and professionals (outside those that the MFC employ) have stated so. It is stated so globally. Science has proven over 1500 species that show homosexual relationships and couplings. Mating through life even with the same critter. Families studies have proven that same sex couples can be indeed BETTER! since they are focused and purposefully making the choice to create a family or to enrich the family they have. They are more often adopting children of need and are put to test to prove that they are indeed a environment where a child will grow with an enriched life and a solid outcome of citizenship.

When it comes down to it, it doesn’t fall into the Christian right or any extremist Religious rule book. That is what the fight is about.

What this country and its founding fathers built this country on was the right to worship as one wished and to NOT be indoctrinated into another.

The religious right is the one indoctrinating here. NO church will ever be forced to put out a ritual ceremony for a couple that does not fit within its list of what is or what is not that religion.

Continue to teach your children your bigotry if you must. But allow the rest of the country to have the same legal right as you do, along with the children of those families.

Um Kirk, I’m a little confused on where you found Al Franken in this story. Oh I get it, you’re just a hater with nothing that would ever resemble intelligence.

I am also confused by the following statement made by the bigots (yes that means you HG) “gay marriage is being forced on Americans”. I will guarantee all you bigots will not have to leave your hetero marriage and marry someone of the same sex, EVER!

Civil rights in America are an unalienable right for ALL citizens. There is NO argument that will ever change this. You can base your argument on religion, you can base your argument on psuedo-science, heck, you can even base your argument on common sense, but this will never change the fact that an American citizens civil rights are based on LAW. The Bill of Rights can NOT be denied to any citizen of this country.

Marriage being between a man and a woman doesn’t not deny any American their civil rights since every citizen is either one or the other. Marriage is perfectly in keeping with the US constitution and the Bill of Rights.

“Kirk the Conservative Jerk”: I’ve repeatedly ask you to follow our comment policies, which call for respectful conversation on topics related to our stories. You don’t seem interested, so I’ve deleted your comment above; your future comments will no longer appear.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/policies

HG = yawn

HG pulls out all the pseudo-intellectual stops among those who oppose same-sex marriage. The first is of course the notion that “throughout human history” marriage has been defined a certain way (it has not) or even that it has always been defined as between members of the opposite sex. Of course, the Sacred Band of Thebes in the fourth century BCE was an example of elite same-sex couplings, and there are many other examples of non hetero-normative (yet mainstream) relationships from antiquity.
And must it be pointed out yet again the marriage based on mutual companionship (wherein same-sex marriage derives its most solid logic) is a modern invention? Certainly not one that has existed “throughout human history.”
The quoting of a 1978 court case (Zablocki v. Redhail) and then noting there is no mention of same-sex marriage is laughable. I suppose we could quote the Dred Scott case of 1857 as a reason to deny blacks citizenship under the same reasoning. This Zablocki v. Redhail case was, of course, long before the court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling that decriminalized same-sex relationships, so I would look there sooner than a case about failed child-custody payments in Wisconsin from the late 1970s.
As to “every person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex,” this argument could have just as easily been made about mixed-race couples before the Loving v. Virginia ruling in the 1960s. After all, every person DID have the right to marry then, too — as long as it was someone of the same race.
But there I go again — assuming folks like HG are really interested in an honest, intellectual debate. Rather, they simply want to lift half-truths from various places to rationalize their own prejudice.

HG,

“Marriage being between a man and a woman doesn’t not deny any American their civil rights since every citizen is either one or the other. Marriage is perfectly in keeping with the US constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

First off, what does “doesn’t not deny” mean? I am assuming that this is a typo.

Second, based on this statement (when edited to proper english grammar), 2 men or 2 women marrying is perfectly fine as every citizen is one or the other.

Don,

Nothing you’ve said changes the fact that marriage throughout human history has been defined as between a man and woman. I didn’t say marriage has never had any other nuances. But the fact remains that only the defiinition I cited has survived and been universally accepted.

HG,

The argument that marriage has been between a man and a woman “throughout human” history is not pertinent to the situation at hand (marriage amendment). That argument is so flawed based on American civil rights law that you would be laughed out of any courtroom.

HG I have addressed how it is discriminatory to just consider one man one woman as it stands NOW.

…..

The right to marry has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. Government has no business intruding in our personal lives. A Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages would write discrimination into the Constitution.

Children of same-sex couples are penalized by marriage discrimination. More than 1 million children are currently being raised by same-sex couples in the United States, according to the 2000 census. Many lesbian and gay parents, however, are unable to assume full legal parenting rights and responsibilities, and in most states, there is no law guaranteeing a non-custodial, biological or adoptive parent’s visitation rights or requiring child support from such a parent. Without the ability to establish a legal relationship to both parents, these children are left without protections such as Social Security survivor benefits.

Writing discrimination into the constitution, federal or state, is unjust. It singles out a group of people and categorizes them as less than others undeserving of legal and economic protections and second-class citizens. Marriage discrimination subjects same-sex couples to the tyranny of the majority.

Marie,

I responded to that the first time you posted it.

HG…. yawn

Praise Jebus, God hates boredom, amen.

Nothing is more dangerous to marriage than the peonage of the poor and the obliteration of the middle class in the Ryan Budget, which the president of the United States Catholic College of Bishops, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, of New York infamy, supports to the point of publically praising Ryan and holding a Mass for him despite the proposal’s vast differences with Catholic Social teaching.

If a Prince of the Church can flout the Pope’s teaching on social justice, why should we be bound to its teachings on marriage?

(With apologies to the late Social Commentator and author, Sidney Jospeh Kennedy, who wrote the last line about Vietnam, Birth Control and Cardinal Spellman of NY)

No matter how many times HG is presented with the fact so history, and the lack of the homophobes claimed ‘impact’ on the family, he lacks the ability to process it. I’m not surprised, based upon his posts. he shows a distinct inability to grasp fundamental truths, history or even logical reasoning.

He and others also seem to suffer from a lack of common civics knowledge regarding why we have a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy: because the founding fathers understood the risks to the minority and wanted to preserve rights for the minority and avoid the ‘tyranny of the majority.’

Multiple fails on the part of HG and the others who think like him.

HG,
Are you aware of the Theban band? If so, how do you argue against it? If not, ignoring it is not really an option just to keep asserting that marriage has always been what you claim it has been. Not that that’s even a viable defense. Slavery had always been a part of human civilization too — a “common sense” presumption that likewise was eventually deemed a blight on democratic ideals. Nevertheless, it was defended as a “natural” way of life, the removal of which would “bring down civilization.”
And besides, earlier generations of people of your ilk could just have easily argued about many of those “nuances” that have now changed and declaratively stated that “marriage has always been X and should always be X.” Fact is, marriage law (and the prohibitions therein) has always been a tool of marginalizing people of certain classes, races, etc (look up the requirements of connubium in ancient Roman law). Same-sex marriage bans are now essentially the inheritors of these laws, only they marginalize/discriminate based on gender instead of class or race.
That said, it’s always refreshing to have none of your arguments addressed ad hoc but only some generalized reassertion of your still-unproven thesis stated back as some sort of conclusive statement. You have prejudice. That’s about it. The rest of your arguments lie far outside of any professional/scholarly consensus in psychiatry, psychology, medicine, most case law at this point, history, sociology, or even etymology (that the “definition” of “marriage” has remained unchanged — look up the word “marriage” or “to marry” in your Greek New Testament and report back what it now connotes in modern Greek).

Don,
Are you trying to argue that marriage has always meant a union between same sex partners?

HG,
Are you trying to argue that what something has always been is what it should always be? Are you trying to argue that gender, sex, and marital relations have always been what they are now, or rather, what you think they should be? Do you have any argument other than tradition and/or religious, personal (and therefore subjective) presuppositions to support your position? If not, why not? If so, what are they, and why do you keep reiterating an irrelevant (and solely rhetorical) point?
Am I trying to argue that marriage has always meant a union between same-sex partners? No, because I know any argument that asserts that anything has always been X is historically fallacious.
Again, do you have any arguments? Evidence? Anything? Or just empty rhetorical questions? I’ll check back in the morning and see if you’ve come up with any.
~D.

HG,

Marriage has been and always will be an organic thing that has changed from the first day to today in a millions ways.

Most of these changes have moved power in marriages away from extended families and to the couples, as well as making women more equal. Here are just a few of the most significant changes in marriage in the West over the past centuries:

Legalization of divorce
Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists)
Legalization of contraception
Legalization of interracial marriage
Recognition of women’s right to own property in a marriage
Elimination of dowries
Elimination of parents’ right to choose or reject their children’s mates
Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals
Elimination of polygamy
Existence of large numbers of unmarried people
Women not taking the last names of their husbands
Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment

Most of these reforms directly benefited women. For a long time, marriage was not in any way a real “partnership” between men and women. Men were in control and women were often little more than property. It’s only very, very recently that people in the West began to treat marriage as a partnership between equals where both men and women had the same status in the relationship — and there continue to be many in America who object to even this idea.

Why was it acceptable to make so many reforms in the nature of marriage that benefitted heterosexuals and women, but not acceptable now to make one reform that benefits gays? Is there any reason to think that all of these other reforms were somehow more “minor” or “superficial” than legalizing gay marriage? No — making women equal in marriage rather than property, eliminating polygamy, and allowing people to marry for love are all at least as significant as allowing gay couples to marry, especially since gay marriage is not unheard-of in human history.

HG,

Yes, and throughout human history up until 150 years ago it was completely fine to own people. It still didn’t make it right.

Joe:

Until 150 years ago? You have an entirely too-sunny view of human nature…

People still think it’s ok to own human beings NOW. There are millions of technically free but practically enslaved human beings just in the United States right now.

“Quick, let’s alter the Constitution to ban that with which Minnesotans are increasingly comfortable before they are a majority!”

Odd logic, flawed policy and religious voodoo.

Praise Jebus, God hates fact based decisions, Amen.

Marie’s comment about women being more equal partners than mere property in today’s marriages, I couldn’t help but speculate on how SSM will contribute to further equalization between married spouses. Situations will no doubt arise that will force us to confront our remaining cultural gender biases; that could be interesting – and not necessarily a bad thing to have happen.

Hmmm, 90yrs ago, Men and Religious Institutions Argued AGAINST women having a Right to VOTE! After all, it was Tradition for 100′s of yrs prior that MEN made ALL the decisions…..so, WHY change it? ….it was TRADITION…….and the arguments made against women voting:
-Society will fall to peices
-Social Chaos will ensue
-Women will wanna be like men
etc etc etc……..
–Luckily the people (MEN) didn’t get to Vote on it…….the Representative Gov’t voted and passed the 19th Ammendment to allow Women the RIGHt to Vote and have a say in Gov’t….and the Fears,Lies and distortions NEVER came to Pass…….Hmmm, sound familiar?

I never read a word that HG posts here and I don’t read any comments that respond to him. I recommend others do the same. It’s always the same tired old stuff. Boring.

HG wrote,

“Nothing you’ve said changes the fact that marriage throughout human history has been defined as between a man and woman.”

To even make this statement is to reveal that you’re not thinking seriously about this issue. You’re regurgitating a slogan, but seem completely unaware of what you’re saying on any deeper level.

Even if there were no instances in the history of humanity in which same sex couples were ever married in any sense, it’s a non sequitur to then conclude that they shouldn’t be allowed to now.

Unless, of course, you believe as a general epistemology that merely because something was accepted in the past as true or right it should therefore be the same today. In which case you can’t argue against slavery, or child exploitation in factories, or women not having the right to vote.

[...] said, at least two other states — Minnesota and N. Carolina — are said to be considering ballot measures banning gay marriage. So — [...]

HG you said:
“The US Supreme Court, in Zablocki v. Redhail, acknowledges marriage and its role in society.
At the time of this ruling, no same-sex union was even in view.
The Court acknowledges the purpose of marriage and its fundamental role in society. Nothing here suggests same-sex unions fall under the Court’s view of marriage.”

First of all many same-sex marriages WERE in view, you just didn’t see if because for many years we were put in jail for who are.

Secondly, the court cited Griswold:

From Zablocki v. Redhail:
More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental “right of privacy” implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

“We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights – older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.” Id., at 486.

So what in the above statement refutes marriage equality.

Thirdly, out of one side of your mouth you cite a SCOTUS decision that finds and reiterates the the right to marry is ALREADY in the Constitution and then you say the we need to write marriage into the Constitution. Make up your mind.

Eric has it exactly right, just cause its been historically one way, doesn’t make it right!

The problem is that we are battling a group of people that do not believe in evolving. They fight the change every day, the leaders of these groups have nothing but power, greed and status in mind when teachings of these fear tactics are used, so its very hard for the liberal who’s tendency is to allow for all ideas, beliefs and lives to live within diversity rather than one of indoctrination and control. The liberal’s view is one of non battle while the extremest is one of pure battle and control. Its why we struggle with the middle east today, and why we have never been successful in non strategic warfare before. My opinion is to attack our Western version of Cult and extreme such as the MFC with continued logic and exposure of their nonsense.

The Bible tolerated and even condoned slavery rape and murder we have grown from those days, I am hopeful we can grow from the in equality we live in today as well.

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay “wedding” is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus,2 two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (512 – 518 CE) explained that, “we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. This is not a case of simple “adelphopoiia.” In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the “sweet companion and lover” of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus’s close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as “erastai,” or “lovers”. In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell3, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, “Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union”, invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints”. The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded”.

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, “taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together” according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell’s academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a [Christian] god-given love and commitment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

“… in the evening the youth came to him [Jesus], wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.” —The Secret Gospel of Mark, The Other Bible, Willis Barnstone, Editor, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1984, pp. 339-342

http://christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasachristianrite.html

Here is more for HG to prove him wrong on what has always been rule. History PROVES you wrong HG.

You can stand on your opinions, and live by them and continue to fight on them, but they will be called out as bigotry, there is proof and you and the MFC, and NOM and all the rest have been debunked time and time again….

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites’ departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge).

Classical antiquity in the Western world is frequently cited for examples of same-sex love and relationships, though separate concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality did not exist in the same way as today. Plato’s Symposium, for example, describes instances of homosexual attraction and same-sex relationships in ancient Greece without condemnation. Some point to examples of same-sex interaction in Greek artwork as further evidence of its equal status within the society. Individual, higher status, however, was of critical importance to free expression of love.

Status enabled older men, beginning in their 20s and 30s to act as mentor to a younger male who had not yet reached adulthood. The relationship consisted of a standardized courtship ritual and the basic belief that male attraction to other men was typically considered to be a sign of masculinity. Same-sex unions were known to have occurred in addition to opposite-sex marriages, existing simultaneously as an educational union available between teacher and pupil, for both men and women outside of their heterosexual arrangement. Such beliefs were not universal in ancient Greece, however. Some states disapproved of the rituals and relationships (Pickett).

The main considerations in same-sex relationships in early history were often love, beauty, and excellence of character rather than gender. There was also a cultural-religious basis for homosexual practice. Greek mythology records “same-sex exploits” by gods as high ranking as Zeus. And the epics of Homer, the Iliad and the Odyssey, contain poetic passages that suggested homoerotic love to the educated hearer. But the culture underwent a transition during which homosexual expressions of love went from overt to covert (Dynes).

Roman social customs are relatively well known, and same-sex unions existed as high in society as among Roman emperors. Roman statesman Cicero also documented legal rights of an individual within a same-sex marriage. Female same-sex unions seemed to have been less common, but only because women enjoyed less freedom in their economic and social endeavors (Eskridge).

Over time, Rome experienced a similar trajectory as Greece between the early republic and the later empire, and negative attitude toward same-sex unions and non-procreative sexuality increased with the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire (Pickett). By the fourth century, anxiety toward obviously pervasive same-sex unions reached a peak when the state passed a law promising punishment to anyone entering a same-sex marriage (Eskridge).

Eastern religions varied in their attitude toward homosexuality, though they were frequently much more neutral than their Western counterparts. Less specific to same-sex marriage, many of the texts make a statement as to their position on homosexual behavior.

The sacred texts in the Hindu tradition, the Vedas, did not restrict homosexuality.

Japanese Buddhism records the most tolerant attitude toward homosexuality, in essence praising it for its mystery (Ishay). Today, there are no religious or political limitations on homosexual behavior in Japan. Sexuality remains a private matter among consenting adults, but there is not yet legal recognition of homosexual unions (McLelland).

Later Buddhist texts in Asia—including Tibet, China, and the Indian subcontinent—were likewise neutral on the subject.

Confucianism strongly emphasized the importance of family and lineage, but did not punish homosexuality as severely as it did adultery. “As long as one fulfilled familial and social obligations . . . Confucians did not single out homosexual behavior for special rebuke” (Ishay). On the contrary, there existed occasions for same-sex bonds or contracts for both women and men. Though traditional historical sources in China tended to not cover practices that deviated from standard social forms, some researchers have found evidence of institutionalized male homosexuality and companionate unions in stories and plays that seem representative of a larger subculture (Sullivan).

European conquest and colonization provides some of the best insight to marital and sexual practices of indigenous peoples across the globe. Examples of same-sex behavior, including transgenerational same-sex unions, have emerged everywhere from New Guinea to Polynesia (and were also prevalent in feudal Japan). The most numerous early accounts of same-sex, transgendered unions exist from European encounters with indigenous people in both North and South America.

The originally derogatory term berdache described transgendered “two-spirit” people prevalent in most of the tribes. Individuals, both male and female, assumed characteristics and roles of the opposite gender and lived out those roles within their tribes. These relationships are easily perceived as “homosexual” by outside observers, but it is clear that the Western delineations of heterosexuality and homosexuality would not have been understood within these societies. Nevertheless, these same-sex marriages had equal cultural and legal recognition within their communities and offered special advantages for the couples, particularly for women berdaches (Rupp, Eskridge).

Similar berdaches and same-sex-style marriages were found among cultures in Africa, and also included an arrangement known as “female husbands.” Often barren, these women assumed the cultural roles of men, including having the same rights as men—which included seeking damages if her wife should have relations outside of their union without her consent. The berdache tradition of same-sex marriage, in various forms, is also well documented throughout Asia, from eunuchs in China to hijras in India (Eskridge).

John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality documents homosexual marriages performed by gay clerics dating back to the fourth century. On the other hand, the church seemed obligated to be critical of non-procreative unions, and questions of translation and interpretation surround some of the documents and ceremonies from the early Middle Ages (Sullivan).

A major example of the kind of theory being developed on the European continent in the nineteenth century came from Austrian-born Hungarian psychologist Karl Benkert (later changed to Karoly Maria Kertbeny). Kertbeny is credited with the coining of the term “homosexuality,” but more importantly suggested the belief that homosexuality is inborn and one of four natural sexual divisions. Because homosexuality is natural, he posited, laws against it are fundamental violations of human rights. Of course, other researchers persisted in believing that homosexuality was a disease (having a very different understanding of “natural law”) and, as a result, continued to pursue a cure while further embedding the argument against homosexuality in Western science and literature. In the twentieth century, the “cure” included electro-shock therapy.

The term “homosexuality” is often used in explaining a person’s “sexual orientation,” with the intent to challenge the belief in the moral legitimacy of heterosexuality. A mid-century survey of nearly 200 societies around the world showed more than two-thirds generally accepted same-sex relationships, and that the lines between heterosexuality and homosexuality are fluid (Homosexuality). Many of those societies permitted same-sex union or marriage to a varying degree.

While “gay” has been in the English language since about the thirteenth century, the word took on sexual connotations by the seventeenth century. Its original connotation of “lively and merry” could be applied to sexual behavior, though not to homosexual behavior until the early twentieth century. Today it is sometimes used only with respect to homosexual men and not in the derogatory way as it once was (Gay).

In the public arena, the terminology has important significance, particularly in the current American debate, which persists in relegating gay relationships to a second-class, unnatural status.

Alternatively, recognition of “domestic partnerships,” or unions of same-sexed individuals, to allow the couple access to the same cultural benefits as different-sexed partners has begun to take hold in some parts of the United States. The idea has precedent in Scandinavia dating to as far back as 1989, when Denmark became the first country to allow legally sanctioned same-sex unions, coining the term “registered partnership.” Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Belgium followed, with the Netherlands notably being the first to grant equal status of same-sex marriages to opposite-sex marriages. By 2005, Spain, France, Germany, and Canada would follow, to varying degrees of recognition.

The Stonewall Riots

As the civil rights movement rocked America in the middle of the twentieth century, the gay and lesbian rights movement also got its start. It was, however, a series of reactionary riots at the New York Stonewall Inn in 1969 that truly first defined the modern gay rights movement. The gay patrons of the bar at the inn fought back routine police raids, officially launching the gradual emergence of a national gay identity wherein individuals “came out of the closet and claimed [their] identity in great numbers” (Eskridge). From that emerging identity, couples formed unions which they considered to be “marriages,” but it would be decades before any state would legally recognize them because of the pervasive (usually Judeo-Christian) belief of an inherent legitimacy of the “natural” union of man and woman for its procreative power.

Studies of openly gay “marriages” during the Sixties and Seventies showed just as much longevity and stability among same-sex couples as their heterosexual counterparts, except same-sex couples were “terminally shackled by social prejudice, legal disadvantages, and economic discrimination” (Eskridge). The movement has evolved from seeking simple toleration of same-sex unions to the hope for legal recognition.

Federalism and the Defense of Marriage

gay protesting The Defense of Marriage Act and prohibition of same-sex marriage are designed to protect “traditional” marriage but are also seen as violations of human rights Many arguments have emerged against same-sex marriage in recent years, especially since individual states in America have begun sanctioning the unions. That a couple be able to produce children, let alone properly raise them, are not preconditions for marriage in the United States. Many religions, however, believe procreation to be central to human existence and that same-sex marriage represents a challenge to the interests and sanctity of heterosexual marriage. The question of gay marriage has been bitterly divisive in the political arena of many nations, but perhaps none more so than the United States.

In America, interpretations of a constitutional basis for equal access have lent support to the gay marriage movement. Some simply assert the role of the Supreme Court to ensure state’s legislation about marriage comply with the U.S. Constitution, which has provisions for rights to privacy and equal protection. Those provisions suggest marital discrimination to be unconstitutional. However, federalism in the U.S. reserves notions of family law for the states to determine, and the marriage laws of individual states need not be recognized by other states. That provision emerged from the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 and, for the purpose of the law (including taxes, social security, immigration, and military benefits), defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

By that same year, a majority of states passed laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. But same-sex couples targeted a clause of Vermont’s constitution that guaranteed equal benefits and rights to all its citizens. The “common benefits” clause would either have to be stricken from the constitution, a controversial and time-consuming move, or the state would have to reach a compromise. Months of intense debate brought about “civil unions,” a term which caught fire in the United States. The state would recognize the unions for access to benefits but other states would not have to recognize them (PBS.org).

Other states and jurisdictions have begun to find room in their laws for same-sex couples to access the rights and benefits afforded their opposite-sex counterparts. Massachusetts, Iowa and, most notably, California have received the most attention, though several other states have had propositions hit their ballots and legislation passed in accordance with equal protection in their constitutions.

You all are spending far too much time disecting what should have been obvious, and assuming what I’m thinking.

Never said homosexuals have never married throughout history. I said, heterosexual marriage is the only consistent view of marriage throughout all of human history. Lest you all get your pannies in a wod, that simply means homosexuality, though found at given times and places throughout history, has never been universally accepted and that acceptance has been inermittent. On the other hand, marriage has throughout history had a universal meaning and that meaning is a man and woman. It’s not rocket science folks. It’s just plain obvious.

Its plain obvious that with the millions of changes that marriage has made, over and over and over again, that it has NEVER been universal in any meaning.

Which again brings only one plain conclusion that is not rocket science, that Marriage is an organic being that can evolve and has and will.

If can’t not have a universal meaning of standard when the standards have changed.

and you have said over and over again that homosexuals have NEVER been accepted. They do and they have and they will be. They are not accepted by your religious extreme, and Only the religious extremes have not accepted them, therefore making you the bigots.

Marie,

Are you kidding? Find a time when marriage didn’t mean a man and a woman.

All the times I mentioned! Any time that there was, or is or will be acceptance and changes. It means One man One Woman for one woman, and it means man man woman woman.

Open your mind just a tad and let the world in. You do not have to support what you have to accept, because fact must be accepted. I understand that you do not want to support same sex marriage. But as long as there has ALWAYS BEEN same sex marriage (and there is proof that there has always been same sex marriages as we have proved it to you) then it Marriage means different things for each person.

your one man one woman marriage will not change, that will always will be be and so will same sex marriage. The real proof is that even though there is bigotry from the extreme groups and that there is inequality, same sex unions, love strives!

Just as slaves never lost dignity shall not the Homosexual. You can throw your bigotry at them, but they will continue. With love, respect and support from the non same sex married world like mine.

During the Yuan and Ming dynasties in China, same-sex marriages between two men were accepted and recognized by society. These marriages were undertaken with all the formalities: the bride price, standard marriage rituals, and social forms associated with “normal” marriages were all present and adhered to. These unions peaked in the seventeenth century, but persisted well into the eighteenth century, despite persecution under the Qing dynasty (Eskridge 41-42).
In many African tribes, such as the Igbo and the Nuer, it is not at all uncommon for a woman to take wives of her own, to whom she is a “husband.” (Eskridge 42-43.) Among the Azande, men often take younger men as “wives” (Eskridge 42; Borneman and Hart par. 14). In all of the tribes wherein these same-sex unions are practiced, they are considered legal marriages and are accompanied by all the trappings of heterosexual marriage, such as the bride price and the prohibition of adultery. In the cases of the female “husbands”, these marriages also result in children; the “husband” is the legal “father” of the children borne by her wife (Eskridge 43). We can see that within recorded history, and even in the present time, marriage between people of the same sex is not an aberration, but rather one of many acceptable forms of matrimony.

The American Indian custom of “two-spirit” marriage institutionalized matrimony between two people of the same biological sex. “Two-spirit” people were considered to be, spiritually speaking, of both genders at once, or even a third (Eskridge 40). Female two-spirits married women, and male two-spirits married men. These marriages were often considered advantageous to the one whom the two-spirit married, as some cultures held two-spirit people in high social esteem.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/67769/gay_marriage_is_as_traditional_as_straight.html?cat=37

Part of the problem I think is that we are speaking of a minority. Just because a smaller sect of population does something, doesn’t mean its wrong. The Majority of marriages have been, are and will be One Man One Woman. There will be, has been, and always will be Same sex marriages as well. Equality within for all is what is being demanded. Not the support for all. No one will ever make you marry someone you don’t want to, we live in a free will state.

HG.. You do know about Free Will right? I think your book talks about that, and that It is not for you to Judge! or to play God within your religion.

The only agenda is that of the Religious right.

HG,

Here is a thought for you. Same Sex unions, Marriages and relations have been here before Christianity. Therefore Same Sex Marriage has a place bigger and is more important than Christianity is.

I see the rituals of Religion as the the one thing that has changed the most in and out of Marriage, therefore least important in the binding of couples, for partnership, love or business, or ownership, depending on what part of history and custom that was involved in said Marriage.

HG

Universally accepted hunh? Wow, even aliens billions of light years away think that humans can only marry the opposite sex? Every thought or belief on earth is in no way universally accepted. Heck even christianity is not worldly accepted. Please come up with an argument that actually holds weight or just go away.

Wow. I checked back to see if HG had come up with anything, but all he did is reassert his unproven platitude regardless of the historical nuances cited for him, and he treated us to some creative spelling to boot. I mean, I’m not elitist when it comes to language, but if you’re going to suggest a word has some absolute, definitional purity, then I would expect at least some respect for orthography.
We can all argue the facts to HG over and over again. He’s merely going to come back with one-liners and slogans. Saying “that’s obvious” isn’t an argument. But why are we surprised? There really aren’t any rational, objective arguments for prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying the people they love. There’s prejudice under the thinly veiled (no pun intended) notion of tradition. The fact that folks like HG come back by saying “it’s obvious” or “it’s common sense” demonstrates that it’s merely fragile ideology without any force of argument behind it.
Speaking of how language and marriage change, I asked HG to look up the Greek word for “to marry” in the New Testament and report back its meaning in modern Greek. He was no doubt too busy crafting his “it’s obvious” and “it’s not rocket science” arguments to do so (seriously, HG, at least update your store of maxims even if not your view of human relations), so I’ll just point out that in modern Greece, gamo, from the ancient gameo, means to F***. So by all means, go mill about Crete musing about Jesus’ unchanging opinions about gamos. No one will mind — it’s used most often in blasphemy over there anyway.
Alas, HG’s the typical same-sex marriage opponent. Get used to it — this is what we’re in for over the coming year.

When anti-equality folk say “CAN I MARRY A DOG? CAN I MARRY A CHILD?”, I am deeply concerned about the way they view relationships…

HG,

The argument you keep on bringing up again and again is part of what is called “natural law theory”. It goes like this: marriage is what you say it is because that is what marriage is. Some people would say that that’s not an argument at all. But I disagree. It is an argument. It’s just without any merit whatsoever.

Damn I love this site and all the comments. Andy B, you rock.

We are aware of what the religious bigots think. It’s just that we no longer care, seeing as all the arrows point toward general oppression of freedom and the demise of democracy.

Politely tell them they can make origami crucifixes out of their constitutional amendment and paper airplanes of the rest of their theocratic agenda and shove the whole lot.