Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. "A holy union of matrimony". The state also uses this structure, even though it's religious, as a basis of commitment between two individuals.

That, in itself, is a breach of a civil liberty, the right to freedom of religion (A.K.A. a breach of the Separation of Church and State). Therefore, marriage should not exist.

I myself don't care about definitions or not. Whether or not it's holy does not matter to me. The structure is endorsed by the state. Therefore if I think of it only in the terms of state, it's not holy, nor is it religious.

I'm totally for marriage. I like the idea. I want to call my man my husband, not my "partner". It's my own personal feeling. A lot of people feel otherwise.

You query reminds me of the issue I usually have with gay marriage, in that there is there is no room for nuance. People can be for gay marriage and not personally want to be married, or against the notion of marriage but not want to miss out on the legal benefits given to spouses, etc. There are feminists who won't get married because it is a historically patriarchal institution, and they want no part. Other people see marriage as a patriarchal institution, so they want to add gays into the mix to steer it away from that, since there is nothing patriarchal about two women or two men together.

I'm always cautious to say I'm against organized religion, but at the same time I know people to get personal benefit from it. It's too simplistic to be for or against so large.

So, I hesitate to say I'm for or against things without clearer definitions. For me, I'm for gay marriage. And, much like it is for straight people now, you can stay outside of the system if you don't want it. At the same time, I do fear a lot of Crate & Barrel in my future with the recent ruling in California, so there is a whole side of marriage that we could redefine, but probably won't.
---

"Be like a postage stamp. Stick to one thing until you get there." -- Josh Billings.

Add me on MySpace!

The way I see it the terms of the argument are wrong.

Anyone can 'marry'. You can have a service (religious or otherwise), a party, invite your family, your friends, have a cake and a dress and garters and horseshoes and be given fondue sets and toasters and non-stick frying pans and bed sheets from John Lewis, and say 'this is my life long commitment to this other person and their life long commitment to me'.

The argument is whether the state should recognise and formalise these personal relationships. Or more broadly- should the state recognise and formalise any relationships between adults? And I think the answer is yes. I think if a man and a woman can elect- in addition to any spiritual commitments they might be making- to enter a legal agreement to take care of each other and any potential offspring and become next of kin, then so should two people of the same sex.

I think legal recognition of these pair bonds is good for society as it they provide support and protection for both parties, that don't need to involve state run institutions or initiatives. It means a stranger (or a potentially estranged family member) doesn't have to take medical decisions for you when you're incapacitated. It means you're not out on the streets if a relationship breaks down because you have a claim to the shared home.

Not to trivialise, but it's sort of like having to pair up with a friend when you were little on school trips.

The history of marriage- even just in the western world in like the past few millennia- is ridiculously complex. It's a patriarchal institution only in as much as all history is a patriarchal institution. It's not a single institution at all, rather a diverse set of religious, social, cultural and economic customs and laws varying by region and time period. Often even there would be more than one system of marriage running in parallel.

The only generalisation is that, among the land owning/ mercantile classes, it was traditionally an arrangement between the families of a man and a woman governing inheritance of property and sometimes titles, though the provision of legitimate offspring.

Now I've stopped watching romantic comedies, but I'm not sure that's what Bridget Jones and her ilk had in mind.

Depending on where or when you're looking at, marriage among the lower class or slave classes may or may not have been legally recognised. For all the classes marriage may or may not have involved a religious component. Sex outside of marriage may or may not have been expected of men, tacitly sex outside of marriage may, but admittedly more often may not have been tolerated of women. Romantic love may or may not have been expected. Divorce may or may not have been possible.

So to change the definition of marriage is not only possible, but has already happened many times. Most dramatically of all is the transformation of marriage into an equal, life long partnership between romantic lovers (in theory).

This is getting too long, but living in the UK, I think our form of civil partnerships for same sex are adequate and close enough identical to marriage in the rights and responsibilities they bestow. On forms and in government literature they all say 'married/ in civil partnership', 'widowed/ surviving civil partner' etc.

Side note, but personally I think women calling each other 'wives' sounds quite stupid. The same way I thought the photo in my old RE textbook of some idiots in their wedding photo with rainbow flags in their bouquet was stupid. Overkill. And stupid. But none of that is a reason against gay marriage or civil union. I imagine though, beneath the rhetoric about marriage being the Divine Ordained cabbage patch for all ickle bebbes and it certainly not being Adam and Steve, that’s what many of its opponents actually object to. Since they're not so wedded to the Judeo-Christian ideal, that Levirate marriages are going to be making a comeback any time soon. I suppose because in all it's infallibility the Bible can't seem to make it's mind up about them. Whereas it's far clearer about divorce (to divorce and remarry is adultery, in all but a few cases- see the Pauline privilege) but no-one's waving placards to get divorce outlawed, despite the fact Paul and Jesus were far more vocal about their prohibition of divorce than homosexuality. Perhaps because more upstanding Christian soldiers are on their second marriages (and who can blame them if you can't have sex before you tie the knot?), than are gay.

I also think libertarianism is quite stupid, but I liked this article:
http://positiveliberty.com/2008/05/repost-on-nurturing-as-the-true-purpo...