Yesterday after a long day of unemployed work I came home to find out that Proposition 8 had been upheld and this has pissed off a lot of my homo brothers and sisters, as it should. I understand their anger over this issue. It's almost as if this is one more way for the Christian conservatives to metaphorically punch us in the gut and say "Hey, you're different and we hate you. Don't you dare forget that!"
I get being upset about it, I really do. There is totally a part of me that just wants to scream out "God, really how stupid are you people? Do you truly think that allowing queers to get married will bring on the end of the world?" But then I remember ‘oh wait, they do believe that and sadly they voted more than the people who don't believe it.’
Before I get into what pisses me off about gay marriage let me just throw some facts out there for those of you who may not know me.
1. I'm a big ol' lezzie and proud of it. Go Pinks!
2. I'm agnostic and have been for a very long time. Being an agnostic nowadays is usually compared to being bisexual, in that both groups can't make up their minds. But though I'm pretty grounded in the fact that though I believe it's possible for there to be a 'god' out there, I do not believe (nor would I worship him even if...) the Christian god is real. I love my Christian friends and family, but that cup of tea is most definitely not my flavor.
3. I believe whole heartedly that before we go to one protest for gay marriage we need to have attended a lot more for the rights of gay service men and women. They risk their lives in this ridiculously unnecessary war only to get shit on by our country. That's just more important to me than a piece of paper and a tax break. (And yes, I'm aware there is more to it than that. It just sounded better to make a generalization.)
4. I'm a Virgo who likes wine, candle light and long walks on the beach. Well that probably wasn't necessary, but it does help to lighten the mood.
And that's probably all you need to know about where I'm coming from.
This is why gay marriage pisses me off. A couple of years ago we had one of the biggest ignoramuses in the country in the office of the presidency. He had gotten us into debt, ignored warnings of the terrorist threat that would lead to 9/11, tapped our phones without warrants, pissed off nearly every country outside of the US, and declared war on a people who had nothing to do with anything he accused them of.
Russell Brand pegged George W. Bush better than anyone when he called him a 'retarded cowboy'. So how the hell did he get re-elected given everything he'd screwed up?
Well to me the answer is simple: gay marriage.
There is a small portion of the Republican Party who vote simply to make sure they have better opportunities in life. Namely rich people that don't want to be taxed more. You know, the people who love tea bagging so much. They can't be bothered to protest the killing of innocents in Gaza, but they'll put on their Gucci sunglasses and their LL Bean jackets to make a really lame attempt at getting the President to go back on a decision to tax them more. Poor guys making all that money and being taxed so much. You know, I'm a nice person. I'll offer right here and now to make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year even if I do have to pay more for it. Shmucks.
Anyway, those people are the intelligent Republican voters. They may not be very cool with their Lipton laden message, but they are fairly smart. But there is also another group of conservative voters; these are the ones who vote on three issues: Religion, Abortion, Guns and Gays. Now these people that are 'on the RAGG' do not seem to understand that they are simply being used by rich people at the ballot box. The tea baggers rile up the people on the RAGG about some moronic social issue that's gonna piss off baby Jesus and Hallelujah, we're somehow saved from the wrath of God by putting a retarded cowboy in the office yet again.
People voted George W. Bush back into office because he stood against gay marriage. They liked to say they voted on a candidate for his 'morals', which pretty much reads "I don't like queers."
Every time I heard this horse shit I got more and more angry. Innocent people were dying on all sides in the war Bush started and all we could focus on was gay marriage. Now, believe me, if I were offered the chance to be married I certainly wouldn't say no to it. And I do get pissed off at the fact that this country is still too bigoted to just put it through. But what really cheeses me off is the fact that were it not for simple linguistics, we might have already had the rights of married people.
Why aren't we fighting a battle that is easier to win?
You got me.
Some of my gay friends say that the simple word switch wouldn't make us equal. That even though we'd have all the same rights, we still wouldn't be equal to straight people just because it wouldn’t be called marriage. This is the best argument to me, but I just don’t care that much about language.
Some of them are Christians and they need the title. And that's fine, but they can fight for that later. I just don’t care that much to be a part of an "institution" rooted in a myth that condemns me anyway. The Bible may condone slavery, incest, and mass murder but it’s not down with the gay lovin.
And some of them are so self centered that the only politics they get into are gay politics so they just follow the rainbow flags. I don’t have many of these people in my circle. These are the ones who won’t give a buck to the HRC at Pride festivals, but then bitch about issues involving gay rights.
Though it may be unconstitutional the entire institution of marriage is based in religion and the stipulations are that it is between a man and a woman. It's not unconstitutional that gays can't get married, but that anyone can get married. However this is not something you can simply undo. Marriage has been a part of this country since before it even was its own country.
When you take away the word 'marriage' the enemies of gay unions have less ammunition to fight us with. Why are we arming them?
The California courts did nothing but uphold the will of the people. Last I checked, that was kinda what we wanted for this country. We can't be mad at them in any case because we damn sure would be pissed if things were the other way around and they did decide to overturn the voters.
Does it suck that we don’t have the same rights?
Yes. I don’t care what they end up calling it, we absolutely should be entitled to all of the same rights as straight people whether it be about shacking up with someone for life or not losing your kids because you left your hetero life partner for a homo one. But we need to realize that you will never get the entire country to recognize gay marriage if we have to vote state by state. The south has literally fought to keep black people enslaved, it will damn sure figuratively fight to keep gays from ruining God’s sanctified union.
We need a constitutional amendment and we need to bite the bullet on that god damn ‘M’ word.
But that’s just me.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
sueinaz
Beth Mann
Owl_Says_Who
Niblet Keebler
mela mee
InZain
Salon.com
Comments
(rated)
Now for my usual rant (I have a stock number - I should write them out once and for all in Word and then just paste 'em into comments).
Marriage once was a religious, or non-religious-just-cultural thing. State got into it to implement financial protection for women and children, particularly when care of widows and orphans was no longer being done by the community (after urbanization and industrialization), but by the state - the state didn't want the burden if there was a man around who was responsible. So then the term 'marriage' became attached to the legal contract that it is today. However, ministers of religion were given the right by the state to witness that signing of the legal contract as a matter of convenience. BUT...marriage is a matter of the state, a legal contract, and the religious marriage ritual is an added frill. A frill that is unnecessary, if you go for a civil ceremony. Or a frill that means a lot if you do the religious thing only - it just isn't recognized by the state.
MARRIAGE IS A LEGAL GOVERNMENTAL MATTER and religious notions of who should or should not SHOULD be beside the point. This should be obvious when you consider, as above, that legal marriage requires the state certificate, religion optional, but not the other way around.
(crosses Mungular off list... :-)
Nicely written.
During the 2004 Presidential elections, I agreed with Barney Frank (and you) that my Mayor's act of officiating over same-gender marriages was ill timed, even though that attitude was difficult to maintain while walking through the Castro during the first "evening of marriage." I had never seen people in the neighborhood so friendly or so happy. I do believe that during the gay marriage issue contributed to Kerry's loss of that election.
Clearly, at this point, my views have shifted. I think that the far right and the Republican party lose ground in hanging onto these old culture war issues as rallying points. If post-election polls are right, many of the Californians who voted for Prop 8 eventually ended up regretting their decision. It may be that this time around, an effort to repeal Prop 8 will actually bring out more progressives than conservatives during the 2010 election.
Unfortunately, regardless of what one personally thinks about the institution of marriage, currently legally recognized marriage confers too many rights on a couple and provides their children with a host of protections that are not only transferable from one state to another, but that are difficult to obtain without great effort through other means.
Roy Jimenez made an interesting observation on my post on this topic, "The real import of this decision is that in the state of California, the word 'marriage' no longer has any legal meaning as to the rights and privileges pertaining to couples who choose to formalize their unions. The earlier decision stands, no couple can be denied equality under the law, the state just can't call it 'marriage' if it's not between one man and one woman."
Regarding the repeal of DADT, yes! I think it's at least as important to our community, if not more so, and I also think it's an easier win on a national level. Rated and reddited, not least for starting an interesting and important discussion!
Mark: agreed.
Bob: You have a lot of good points there.
Julie: Thanks a lot.
Myriad: This is true, but in the end I do believe it's rooted in religion and that, honestly, it shouldn't be a part of government at all. I guess I think everyone should have a government union, then call it whatever they like according to their beliefs.
Rob: hahahahahahha
Shivaun: "I think that the far right and the Republican party lose ground in hanging onto these old culture war issues as rallying points."
I wish I had your optimism. I think they will always find an 'other' to hate and try to bring down and that it will earn them votes. People love to rally in ignorance and hatred.
Let's just hope you're right ;) Thank you for the comment!
Seriously. I'm getting the vapors. Let's get Mary to work on Sotomayor to come out...they'd be adorable together! Then, perhaps, we can stop all this nonsense.
Your article was 99.6 % factual. The only goof came when you said that marriage is between man and women. The current idea of "marrige" is, certainly: one man, one woman. But a good pagan like you should know
that this is only a recent development. A few centuries. The original marriage was between the Goddess and her male consort/child. The vegetation myth cycle, etc. It required a pretty big "dowry" (HA) for the man: his life or...later, his penis & balls. That is real tradition. What i never understood about these Fundamentalists and traditonal people is how they stop "The Human Tradition" at a convenient point for themselves....like....
why not stop at the first christians? Well, cuz they didnt believe in marriage, thats why. They were a buncha communists...sharing, treating women equally, all that...um....progressive shit...or is it REGRESSIVE? ha...
The traditonal marriage is from a property advantage for men. Like: they get it all. And give it to their sons. But this is only after The Father God took over, like in ancient Hellenic & Hellenic Roman times....before that, well, it was all the women's, i think...though they were like our so-admired Native Indians: "nooone OWNs the land," they say...
But then theyll say, yah, well we have evolved. (Except: Fundamentalists dont really believe in spiritual or biological evolution....only evolution of social structure, or wealth-patterns, or technology...which again, they decry....they are a nest of contradictions...
so who cares about em? Theur day is coming to an end, the writing is on the wall. Be patient. They are only being kept alive, these christian-types, these pseudo-religionists, by their ability to raise a squawk. Then they pretend to have rational discourse. Except: they trust revelation over reason....
The general public couldnt care less what yre religion is, as long as he is seen by you
to be an equal.. or even morally "righteous". This is
because:
he isnt so scared of the dark when he has a buncha his friends
there in the cellar with him...
Gay marriage=the solution to the population explosion worry,
said rolling today....what sense...jim
Myriad -- marriage exists because it is a way to make sure the father (who shares 50% of his genes with his offspring) is known and supports his children, not the mother's family (who, other than the mother, shares 25% or less of the kids' genes).
Religion, codifying morals and presenting itself as the source of all morals, of course, adopted marriage.
In Russia, thanks to communism, a marriage is "registered" in a Gov't registration "palace," ZAGS. The marriage can, at the choice of the couple, be blessed by the church. Many couples don't bother with the church blessing.
I note that this is how Prince Charles married Camilla. It was a civil marriage that was then blessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was not a church marriage.
Your comment about not wanting to be a part of an "institution" that condemns you reminded me of this comic from 2004.
This is a common sentiment on Open Salon, but I find it baffling.
The argument -- inasmuch as there is one -- seems to me that any law or program that has its roots in any religion or has any kind of religious provenance is "religious," and thus a violation of the Constitution.
Question: would you approve of the elimination of all social welfare programs? These programs have religious roots, and for many centuries the church was THE source of help for the poor:
"In Anglo-Saxon times, the administration of poor relief was almost entirely under the control of the church. Religion and the institutions of the organized church played a major role in early assistance to the poor. Some consider the early ecclesiastical system
of poor relief as a primary source for the later Elizabethan poor laws and even more of a model for modern poor relief in the United States. These influences can be roughly divided into two areas: biblical-religious influences on the perception and treatment of poor people by individuals; and the manner in which the church institutions ministered to the poor and how that ministry later influenced public assistance to the poor." [from "Five Hundred Years of English Poor Laws, 1349-1834."]
So much for social welfare programs. Having their roots in religion, they are also unconstitutional. Oh well.
The Open Salon reaction to the decision on Prop8 has been fascinating. I mean, you'd think everyone's dog had died and homosexuals were about to be shipped off to concentration camps, and it's difficult to navigate through all the rending of garments and weeping and gnashing of teeth.
And for what? Over the fact that gay and lesbian couples will have to "make due" with having all of the rights that married couples have that the State of California can give, but without the label of "marriage." The horror! The horror!
And over THAT -- gays and lesbians are now the New Blacks, and images of slavery, lynching, and "back of the bus" are invoked, and the 52 percent of citizens of California who voted for Prop8 are a collective Bull Connor, unleashing fire hoses and police dogs on the hapless homosexuals.
Those citizens are also "stupid." And what is the evidence of their stupidity? Throughout history marriage has always meant male and female. Across centuries, millenia, cultures, climates, religions, geographic areas, languages, marriage was always male and female. Whether the society was primitive or modern marriage was always about male and female. Whether the marriage was arranged or chosen, based on love or politics, whether the woman was considered free and equal or the property of a man, marriage was always about male and female. And it was that way even in cultures in which same-sex relationships were acceptable in other contexts, as in ancient Greece.
And then some time around last week, so to speak, the "right" to same-sex marriage was discovered. And that thing that no one knew existed before, gays and lesbians must now have, and they must have it immediately! And no one must stand in their way, and anyone who does is stupid, hateful, and perhaps more than a little evil.
And ironically, here on Open Salon many of the supporters of same-sex marriage actually detest marriage. They hate the fact that it has a religious provenance, and many would like to see it done away with. They say that government should get out of the "marriage business."
Beyond male and female, many here have no interest in other aspects of marriage as it has traditionally been understood in the West. When pressed on the issue of polygamy and other poly-relationships they often say "sure, why not, who cares?" When pressed on the issue of monogamy and faithfulness, they say "it's none of your business" -- which they pretty much have to say because so many gay men are not monogamous, even those in long-term relationships.
In other words, many here have absolutely no interest whatsoever in what most people consider to be marriage -- except that if the heteros have it, the gays must also have it. Beyond that they couldn't care less about it, and anyone who has any interest in traditional marriage is considered a "dinosaur."
So the message to the hetero community from Open Salon is "most of you are a bunch of stupid, hateful, bigoted dinosaurs. We really don't like marriage, don't care who gets married to whom, and don't care about the heterosexist notion of monogamy and faithfulness. And by the way, your marriage is unconstitutional, as is every other marriage. Nonetheless, we want you to vote for same-sex marriage."
Yeah, great message, what's not to like about that?
If I want to get married in a church or synagogue, there there are already plenty of each that will gladly perform the ceremony and welcome me and my partner as equals. This is what makes the wild-eyed howling in defense of marriage so absurd in the first place. They argue in the name of religion, but all in all, the churches are much more friendly to us than the state. Let them go picket churches and see how that goes down.
There seems to be too much energy spent on trying to force narrow-minded people change their minds. A noble cause maybe, but people generally change their minds in the privacy of their...own minds, not in the heat of an argument. When people who are attached to a dogma are pressed, they tend to just dig in deeper and grasp at straws (hence the inane repititions of the old "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" line, or rhetoric about "endorsing homosexuality" or "recruitment." They literally have nothing better to found their arguments on. And they don't feel the need to have; this is not a matter of logic for them. We need to make sure our rights are ensured, under whatever header. When others see that the world didn't end, they'll come around. Or not, but we have other things to deal with.
If you want a legal partnership recognized by the government and rewarded with tax breaks, go down to city hall and get a civil union. That's fine for all configurations of dyads.
If you want to do something religious, go to a church that'll marry you and get married.
Do both if you want to. Or neither.
Just stop confusing legal partnership with marriage (which, at least in this nation, has a religious tradition behind it).
Gah.
On the whole, I think I get your argument, I just want to add an addendum to the above - I think part of the reason for that argument (that a gay 'civil union' wouldn't really be equal to a 'marriage' was that, suposedly, marriage is the "passport word" (I remember hearing this on NPR's 'On the Media' a while back - I think it was EJ Graff that said it).
Marriage is the word that people know, around the world as well as around the country. In a way, I guess the idea is that it cuts through the ignorance somewhat - people recognize the word, if not the situation, and are maybe more likely to acquiesce.
I'm not particularly enamoured with this line of argument (I could imagine it backfiring as much as helping), but there you go - I think it's something to think about; a vague idea of the legal rights being protected/helped more through a partial sense of familiarity.
[Disclaimer#1: I know nothing]
[Disclaimer#2: I would agree with m.a.h. in principle, but it's hard to see that actually happening]
First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Yes, I see this as more than "just" a civil rights fight. As far as I'm concerned this is a fight against the darkness that lurks in the not so distant future for women and people of color and low income folks and the disabled and...and...and
For others - I thought Quebec had what you're looking for = you want legal marriage, you go to city hall and get yer civil union. You want a religious marriage (shrug), that's a whole other matter, of no interest to the government. However, I find the Quebec government is still giving the witness-the-legal-contract thing to religious AND OTHER people as a matter of convenience to the couple (one stop instead of two). I know this because a Pagan of my acquaintance got a one-off for this purpose. I think it would be better to have people have to go to city hall for the civil union (some places now will issue license and have you sign marriage papers all at once, no waiting). That would bring it home to people that it's a legal contract and religion is an optional side dish.
So, tossing aside this "traditionalist argument" for a moment...OK, tossing it out completely, as it deserves, we can ask :"What harm does gay marriage inflict upon society?"
Does it 'break your leg or pick your pocket?" No. Does it "Diminish your heterosexual marriage?" If it does, then that union must not have anything going for it.
As much as some try to form a secular line of reasoning, and in that those "arguments" are grasping for concepts far outside of law and civil rights - the conclusion presents itself - they don't like gay marriage because it's against their religion.
We hold these truths to be self evident - that all men are created equal, except for those who aren't, and are endowed by My Creator with certain alienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - unless by exercising those liberties they offend my sanctimonious sense of what is proper. Amen.
I've always wanted to ask the anti-gay marriage folks if it was worse to not believe in God or to believe in God and be gay. I mean, if being gay is supposed to disqualify your partnership in the eyes of God, wouldn't a lack of faith also be a disqualifier?
So I'm all for creating civil unions for government recognition and letting the various religions enforce their own views and beliefs on marriage for those who choose to participate.
You wrote: "And ironically, here on Open Salon many of the supporters of same-sex marriage actually detest marriage. They hate the fact that it has a religious provenance, and many would like to see it done away with. They say that government should get out of the "marriage business." "
Well...I wrote that the government ought to get out of the marriage business...and I see that my sister did also. Neither of us "detest marriage." I know of many other people who argue for the government getting out of the marriage business...and I don't know of any of them detesting marriage.
It is not something the government should be doing.
Property and inheritance rights have to be formulated...and the government is a necessary ingredient in that formulation. The government should be able to formulate a policy that allows for legal partnerships that deal with those rights...or what society wants to consider "rights."
Let marriage be the business of religion. Some religions will only offer it to people where there is one man and one women...others will offer it to two men or two women...and probably, at some point to more than two people.
Not sure why the rant...but I think it was over-reaction to what was being said here.
Many marriages between a man and a woman don't...and never were intended to produce any children.
Should those kinds of marriages not be allowed?
And why marriage for the procreation. People not married can procreate, right?
Your argument is interesting...but not especially persuasive.
Well, after 220+ years of affirming the Constitutional rights, we are reduced to deciding who doesn't have them. Pathetic.
OK, I'm in! Those religious folks bother me. They're always trying to force the rest of us to obey their beliefs. I say the next Constitutional Disamendment should be to forbid these people to vote. Because they have no respect for the Social Contract the rest of us agree upon, it's plain they don't deserve its protection.
I'm not sure I even want to drink from the same water fountain they use. They shouldn't be allowed to intermarry with others like them, as it can breed more of these intolerant Constitutional bastards.
If they are allowed to continue with full rights, there's no doubt that the traditional bonds of America will be broken, and soon society will collapse, and we will be depopulated by Americans marrying inanimate objects.
We do this in the name of Tradition!
You know why none of these other sins are illegal Mung? Because they AFFECT MAJORITY.
If I'm not going to have the same rights as a straight person, WHY SHOULD I PAY JUST AS MUCH TAXES? I don't get THEIR benefits, THEIR privileges, THEIR fair decision making. So why should I pay for it just as much? Oh that's right, because they need us. Yeah, NOW we're all in this together. When it benefits them. What a great group of "people" we have upon us huh?
Furthermore, there is no "one size fits all" marriage. People shape their relationships as they see fit, and I feel certain that there are just as many different marriages as there are different couples.
I have comments (surprise!)
"Namely rich people that don't want to be taxed more. You know, the people who love tea bagging so much."
Rich people (Fox news employees, for instance) love tea-bagging not for themselves so much as for the suckers who participated. The leaders of that particular idiocy were the wealthy. The folks on the street were regular (not-too-clearly thinking) folks who didn't know history or our tax code.
"three issues: Religion, Abortion, Guns and Gays."
1)Religion
2)Abortion
3)Guns
4)Gays
Yes? ;-)
"putting a retarded cowboy in the office yet again."
I would give a lot less credit to gay marriage than to 1) the media, who trashed Kerry similarly to how they trashed Gore: by making up false tropes about who he was; and 2) the Republicans preventing enough people from voting to, as happened in 2000, get close enough to steal the election.
"Some of them are Christians and they need the title."
The title is that which distinguishes those who get all the rights from those who don't. See Marriage Rights and Benefits.
"the stipulations are that it is between a man and a woman."
Myriad covers this completely.
"The California courts did nothing but uphold the will of the people. Last I checked, that was kinda what we wanted for this country."
The case as brought was only about whether the proposition followed state law. The California Supreme Court decided it did. But the reality is that Prop H8 is unconstitutional at the federal level:
I bring you (ta da) The 14th Amendment: ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Marriage matters.
The image of homosexuals as promiscuous probably came from the activism of the 1980s, wherein people decided they were going to stop hiding and start having sex and being open about it. I suppose in some ways it was counterproductive. What makes you think that marriage won't curb that behavior among gays and lesbians? Most people take their commitment to fidelity very seriously, gay and straight alike.
Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual or legal union of individuals that creates kinship. Marriage may be between two men, two women, or even a man and a woman.
In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage - only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.
Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual or legal union of individuals that creates kinship. Marriage may be between two men, two women, or even a man and a woman.
In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage - only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.
Roman marriage and divorce required no specific government or religious approval.
From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[23][24] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required
As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1545 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with 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."
So-called "traditional" marriage, then, only dates back to 1545. Ooops!
Onward.
Mishima666 typed: "... rending of garments and weeping and gnashing of teeth. And for what? Over the fact that gay and lesbian couples will have to 'make due' with having all of the rights that married couples have that the State of California can give, but without the label of 'marriage.' The horror! The horror!"
First problem with your post, Mishima, is that language matters. Ask your women friends and acquaintances how much they like being referred to as girls or chicks, or whether your black friends and acquaintances are neutral about colored or boy.
Second, you generalize wildly to make your point. Because some LGBT people on OS are against marriage, you make that a justification for trashing the whole issue. Not to mention your observation about "rending of garments and weeping and gnashing of teeth" puts the lie to this not being important to a very large number of people, both fay and straight.
Third, marriage and civil unions are not the same nationally. , So, each state that makes marriage legal puts more pressure on Congress to toss out the unconstitutional so-called Defense of Marriage Act.
Whether they are the "New Blacks," LGBT folks are being given "separate but equal" treatment. The 14th Amendment does not allow "separate but equal."
"some time around last week, so to speak, the 'right' to same-sex marriage was discovered." Actually, the first state to legalize marriage did so five years ago. The first country, The Netherlands, acted nine years ago. As early as the mid-eighties, a group of gay rights activists, headed by Henk Krol - then and now the editor-in-chief of the Gay Krant - asked the government to allow same sex couples to marry. So, not even metaphorically, was it last week.
"so many gay men are not monogamous, even those in long-term relationships." And this would be as opposed to straight men?
As to the use of the word "stupid," there I agree with you. "hateful, bigoted dinosaurs" I can completely live with. And ignorant, too.
Leslie writes: "If I recall correctly, Mishima also has said that his evidence of infidelity was his own assessment based on visiting gay websites and seeing photos suggesting that some gay men seem to be obsessed with sex."
It's not that many gay men will "have a hard time" with monogamy. It's that they aren't interested in it.
The studies (not photos) that I have seen cited on gay web sites indicate that around 75 percent of gay men in long-term relationships are not monogamous.
One author (on a non-gay web site) noted that --
"In a 1999 survey of such couples in Massachusetts, sociologist Gretchen Stiers found that only 10 percent of the men and 32 percent of the women thought that a "committed" intimate relationship entailed sexual exclusivity. An essay called "Queer Liberalism?" in the June 2000 American Political Science Review reviewed six books that discussed same-sex marriage. None of the six authors affirmed sexual exclusivity as a precondition of same-sex marriage, and most rejected the idea that sexual fidelity should be expected of "married" homosexual partners. For more than a decade, a wide array of authors who favor redefining marriage to include same-sex partners have advanced similar views. In a 1996 essay in the Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan law professor David Chambers even suggested that marriage should be redefined to include sexual unions of three or more people--so-called polyamorous relationships."
A gay therapist writes: "As a gay therapist who has seen hundreds of gay couples in a vast range of unconventional, loving and sustaining relationship configurations--including monogamy, semi-open relationships (Thursday nights off), three-partner relationships and more--I have grown to respect the fluidity and customized relationship forms that can work well for gay men. "
http://www.gaypsychotherapy.com/MONOGAMYCASE.htm
Another gay therapist cites this: "In his book, The Soul Beneath the Skin, David Nimmons cites numerous studies which show that 75% of gay male couples are in successful open relationships."
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay039s-anatomy/200809/are-gay-male-couples-monogamous-ever-after
Another gay web site notes that "For many gay men, the word "monogamy" is about as appealing as the word "gonorrhea." Research has shown that among gay couples who've been together for more than five years, sexually exclusive couples are a minority."
http://www.gay.com/news/roundups/package.html?sernum=1326&navpath=/channels/health/mental/
While some heteros have affairs while married, this is seen as a serious moral failure, so serious that it puts at risk the survival of the marriage. There are very few hetero couples who incorporate adultery as a normal part of their relationships.
The first same-sex married couple in Massachusetts announced that they would have an open relationship. A while back on OS we had an interesting post from a gay man who is married to his partner in Canada, and both of them have lovers living in the same house. This stuff is par for the course.
Especially in the case of gay men, this is one reason why I don't think that marriage is a very good "fit" for them. I don't care what these guys do in their free times, but if I'm asked to vote to open the institution of marriage to an entire class of people most of whom have no interest in monogamy, I have a problem with that, because it really does redefine marriage, not only with respect to the sex of the participants, but also with respect to the whole idea of faithfulness.
That said, here on Open Salon I have observed a number of women talking about their long-term monogamous relationships, and how they want nothing else but that. Some of these stories are very moving and compelling.
What I haven't heard from these same women is a principled defense of married monogamy per se. In other words, when I read about a woman's long-term monogamous relationship with her partner, how does she understand that relationship? Does she see monogamy merely as a personal preference? Or does she see monogamy as the only moral option?
If the former, that doesn't impress me. If the latter, then we have some common ground.
The Open Salon post I would like to see -- but so far have never seen -- is a gay man or lesbian woman offering a principled moral defense of married monogamy. Not monogamy as one option, but monogamy as THE option.
There's the challenge. Any takers?
Having said that, I am in a 20+ year lesbian relationship, now a legally binding (married) one that is completely without any specifically sexual contact for some years now due to some ancient trauma in my partner's life. I am, at this time, essentially asexual. Do you think this situation shouldn't qualify me for marriage because we don't have sex?
The gall is unbelievable.
I'm sorry, we just can't trust you to do the right thing. Should it be determined that someone strays on any of these requirements, your marriage will be annulled.
Robin: Always thinkin ahead. =)
m.a.h: I acutally get reamed for postulating that in just a few more comments lol
James: I guess I'm just going on the largest consensus of religion in north america as my basis. After our ancestors tragically murdered and relocated the Native Americans we were pretty much basing our social structures on the values of protestant Christians. Thankfully the founding fathers put up the separation of church and state, but I do think this is one area of overlap that they didn't think would cause a problem. Thanks for the comment!
Malusinka: Thanks a lot!
Shaggy: for some reason the link didn't pull up for me...
Frank: I love your bluntness.
mishima: As far as your first comment goes, I'm not entirely sure you read my blog. I pretty much spent the entire space talking about how I don't care to change the definition of marriage nor do I wish to force it on the country. I'm stating that I would like the gay community to be allowed the same rights under a non-religious name.
I made a simple comment about marriage possibly not being constitutional due to it's rooting in religion, but I didn't belt that one home either. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said it would do harm to take it out of the system. So again, not sure what the issue is.
As far as me beliving people are bigoted and stupid if they don't want to allow homosexuals equal rights, I'd be lying if I said I didn't believe that. Now, being stupid is not something I can say, with full confidence, about every anti-gay voter because honestly I've met some very intelligent bigots. But I'm pretty confident that bigotry does come in there somewhere.
Your very generalizations about same sex relationships would lead me to believe you're a bigot moreso than your objection to gay marriage. I'm homosexual and I've never been unfaithful to a partner. And just off the top of my head I can think of more of my fellow homo cohorts that ascribe to monogamy over polygamy as well. I'd wager my pool of examples from which to draw probably outweighs yours.
To your latest question: "In other words, when I read about a woman's long-term monogamous relationship with her partner, how does she understand that relationship? Does she see monogamy merely as a personal preference? Or does she see monogamy as the only moral option?
If the former, that doesn't impress me. If the latter, then we have some common ground."
First of all let me say that impressing someone else should never be the foundation of holding a moral conviction and that I'm acutally surprised someone as intelligent as you has such an amazingly narrow view.
Second of all I do actually believe that monogamy is the only moral choice if one is to enter into a relationship. Infidelity is not ok with me. I hate it. I don't really think polygamy works, it's not my thing. But just because I don't ascribe to it doesn't mean it's wrong.
And last, with so many straight couples cheating on each other, swinging, and getting divorced I really don't understand how they are so much more moral than anyone else.
I'm sure you'll be able shoot down all of my points. Most of the people that have pointed comments at you are much more intelligent than myself. But I think in the end it'd be a lot easier for me to simply view you as an intelligent bigot, and you to view me as an immoral jerk. We can cyber shake hands and leave it be. Because amazingly enough I seem to mostly agree with you as far as the contents of my post goes.
kipouros: We absolutely have more important things to worry about. Very, very true.
VR: Get it all out, girl.
DasAlterEgo: I actually didn't take into consideration the global effect of a linguistic difference. It doesn't exactly change my stance, but it does make for a much stronger arguement on the other side. thank you!
dcvdickens: I think you're geat!
phm: With that kind of name on an oatmeal it should stand up way better than it did. Those bastards.
As far as you agreeing with mishima it may benefit you then to read my response to him. I'm not sure if either of you understood the point I was making.
fishydu: I've always liked and been afraid of that one.
aaron: I applauded you when I read 'STOP ACTING LIKE A BIGOT'
Myriad: I still believe that the general idea for the institution is rooted in religion. In this country it happens to be rooted in Christianity. People were getting married in churches way before we signed the declaration of independence. Government brought the religious institution into their arena as far as I can see. But hell I've been wrong about a million times before...
Lulu: "But first and foremost, Obama has to deal with the stupidity of "don't ask, don't tell" and the defense of marriage act. Ack. "
And about a million other things. ;) Thanks for the comment.
Paul: It may be the less evolved frat boy in me, but I much prefer someone to use a little more flair when demeaning me. I'm a huge fan of foul language. Could you possibly use a "screw you, idiot" next time. I'd feel a lot more dignified. ;). Thanks for demeaning me.
As for your second comment the mellow drama was a bit much, but I'm glad you're feeling a part of things.
SoapboxAmy: Thanks for actually reading my blog! There seems to be some kind of problem with that for a few of the commenters.
Reader: I totally understand the sentiment.
mamoore: "it takes focus and resources away from solving things like poverty and war."
Absofrigginlutely.
Debbie: I already hit you up, girl. But thanks for commenting.
np: 'White Trash should not be allowed to cow us all into submission just because they are willing to vote like assholes.'
It's the numbers that bother me the most. But damn that was funny.
Bill: you make some excellent points. I am sadly going to have to touch on them later though. It's getting late and I've got a lot of work to do tomorrow, but I did want to let you know that I totally appreciate your commentary.
Thank you all for commenting!
If you mean that I left out ellipses, I am guilty of that, but it was unintentional. I picked the sentences that indicated the history of marriage in Greek, Roman and European culture. But I didn't rewrite anything. Beyond that, I don't know what you're referring to.
What false claims? I have problems with people who make accusations and don't actually provide evidence.
:)
That's not the issue. The issue is the extent to which there may be a significant cultural difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals on the importance of fidelity in marriage.
The vast, overwhelming number of heterosexual married couples I know believe that adultery is wrong, even if they fail to adhere to that ideal. They see that as a norm, not as merely a personal preference.
You say: "The gall is unbelievable."
The "gall" here being the idea that some things are right and some are wrong, or at least weird, and that it is appropriate to make that determination.
Comes now Mungular: "Second of all I do actually believe that monogamy is the only moral choice if one is to enter into a relationship. Infidelity is not ok with me. I hate it. I don't really think polygamy works, it's not my thing. But just because I don't ascribe to it doesn't mean it's wrong."
Ok, so in summary, monogamy is simply your personal preference, and poly-relationships not your "thing."
Let me put it this way: for the great majority of heterosexual married couples, religious or not, monogamy is very important, even if they sometimes fail at it. They see faithfulness in marriage as being not merely a matter of personal taste, but of profound moral significance. And they see heterosexual married "swingers" who go out and fuck all sorts of other people as bizarre.
Maybe, as Leslie says, that's "gall," but that's the way it is for the great majority of heterosexual people in the country -- and it seems not so many homosexual people. At least I haven't found many of that persuasion.
So if some people who marry are not monogamous (and I assure you, many are not), it is not my business to judge them, nor is it my business to take away their rights or the rights of any monogamous, serial monogamous or multi-partnered people as a group because a few might not have my beliefs or family structure.
You cannot deny a class of people rights if a few within that class do not conform to your idea of "right living."
And I ask you again, because my marriage is asexual, is that also cause to deny my rights? How is that different?
Because I wanted to understand what gays had to say for themselves about their own relationships and their own understanding of marriage, rather than having it filtered through someone else's opinion. I seem to be the only one who takes the time to do that, and for some reason that's seen as negative.
tregibbs: "If my neighbor wants to cheat on his wife with his secretary, it's STILL none of my business, even though I think it's wrong."
Really? None of your business? And when their marriage is destroyed because of your neighbor's infidelity, and his wife and children end up in poverty because of that, is THAT none of your business? When his children end up damaged because of the divorce is that none of your business? How bad does it have to get before it IS your business?
Frankly, if I were married and fucking my secretary I would HOPE that someone would try to bring me to my senses.
tregibbs: "You're attempting to hold society up to some bogus moral measuring stick of your own making."
You mean that bogus moral measuring stick that a majority of the people in the country still believe in.
tregibbs: "No one cares what you think."
Well, here on "Open" Salon, probably no one does care. This is one of these few groupthink issues here where contrary opinions are barely welcome, if at all. When it comes to gay marriage Open Salon is little more than an "echo chamber" that we criticize the right-wing people for all the time. The opinions here on gay marriage -- actually, marriage in general -- are so far off from the mainstream that there's just no comparison.
This is a country of options and choices. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't, and we learn from what we try and what happens as a result. We are responsible for our own actions, but not of the actions of our neighbors in their private lives.
It is not your business how we choose to conduct our lives, nor is it our business to take your rights away for conducting your life in a different way than our own.
People make mistakes all the time. We don't learn by being lectured or told how to behave. We learn from making mistakes and trying something else.
I find it difficult to believe that you never try new things, take risks, and learn. Maybe you should try it sometime; you might live a richer, happier life. You don't seem very content to me, the way you try to shove your beliefs down everyone's throats about the one true way to live well, as if you are trying to justify to yourself that you really are happy.
And if you think we're all so incredibly weighed down in group think over here why do you even bother? It's not as if we're ever going to say anything you won't be expecting and obviously this is an issue that you don't agree with. Unless you just thrive on the drama I can't see how reading and commenting on all of this stuff is anything more than mental redundancy.
You aren't trying to understand this point of view, and I don't see you changing your mind. The only thing I gather is that you don't like being considered a bigot and you're trying to argue it away. It would seem to me you're only making it worse, and that sucks because I don't think you're a bad guy. Condescending and somewhat narrow minded, but not bad.
It's the "being legal" part, not the legitimization of it I think that bothers most and rightfully so. You and and gay person should enjoy the same rights that my wife and I and any straight couple does that choose to spend the rest of their lives together. What's the most amazing is that it's California for God's sake (sorry, I'm one of your believer friends.)
But this is one righteous and well thought out, calm rant.
RATED
Sorry I got off topic here. Sheesh!
In general I would agree with you, but with this exception: how people live their lives can have an effect on the institutions of which they are a part.
Let's consider not just people but institutions. In his book Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character, Jonathan Shay talks about an army as a "social construction," but his explanation could be applied to virtually any societal institution. Here's what he says:
Any army, ancient or modern, is a social construction defined by shared expectations and values. Some of these are embodied in formal regulations, defined authority, written orders, ranks, incentives, punishments, and formal task and occupational definitions. Others circulate as traditions, archetypal stories of things to be emulated or shunned, and accepted truth about what is praise-worthy and what is culpable. All together, these form a moral world that most of the participants most of the time regard as legitimate, "natural," and personally binding.
Remove the army-specific language from that quotation and you would have an excellent description of marriage:
Marriage is a social construction defined by shared expectations and values. Some of these are embodied in formal laws and roles. Others circulate as traditions, archetypal stories of things to be emulated or shunned, and accepted truth about what is praise-worthy and what is culpable. All together, these form a moral world that most of the participants most of the time regard as legitimate, "natural," and personally binding.
Behavior, actions, and attitudes that would be insignificant in one's personal life can have great significance when done in the context of an institution. Using the army as an example, if in personal life one did not wear a uniform and salute, no one would care. In fact, if you did people would think you were strange. But if you were in the army and didn't wear a uniform and salute, that would be a huge issue, and if a significant number of people in the army stopped wearing uniforms and saluting it would change the entire nature of the institution.
Obviously marriage is not tightly governed by regulations the way that military service is. But my point is that when sufficiently many married people adopt certain attitudes and behaviors, that necessarily becomes part of the norm in marriage. It changes how people see marriage.
neilpaul writes: "Moreover, excluding gays from marriage rights based on a survey of "gay websites" would have the effect of emphasizing their status as "different" and "other" which feets into anti-gay sentiment."
While it's hard to generalize and there is no monolithic "gay identity," in my reading many of them do feel different. As with any minority group many gays are concerned with being "assimilated" into the mainstream through feeling compelled to adopt "heterosexist" ideals such as monogamy. They see their own practices and values as completely normal and natural, not in need of any reform.
Mungular writes: "Sorry man, until I see a degree in gay studies on your desk I'm not taking your word about gays being more promiscuous or open to promiscuity."
You shouldn't take my word for it. I have provided a number of links here and on other posts. The information is freely and easily available. So do the research. If you arrive at a different conclusion let me know. I have tried to inform myself on the issues, but I'm not an expert.
Mungular: "Condescending and somewhat narrow minded, but not bad."
Condescending? Have you actually read what people on your side of the issue say? In John Mortimer's recent post on Prop 8 he said that "the California Supreme Court has abdicated its responsibility to the mob by handing ‘liberal’ California over to a confederacy of dunces and Tobacco Road morons who march us backwards in lock step." Around here your side typically uses words such as stupid, ignorant, bigoted, hateful, and so on. That kind of language is almost expected in the comments now.
For what it's worth I don't think that anyone on your side is ignorant, stupid, or anything like that. I do think that a number of people have not thought through some of the issues, and I and a handful of others offer a different perspective.
mishima:
"Condescending? Have you actually read what people on your side of the issue say?"
What's kind of funny is, as of late, I generally try to stay away from any of the Prop 8 stuff around here because I think it's so damn trivial in the face of issues like the war, Gitmo, and the economy. I just wrote this piece because it was bugging me and I'm not eloquent enough to handle any of the harder topics. Plus I'm trying so hard to find a job that I've actually got less time to be on here than when I actually had one.
But, and this is that area where we're just going to have to agree to disagree, I do believe that people that would deny others the rights that they have are bigots. Ignorant and stupid people are there on both sides. I make reference to that kind of gay voter in my post above and I've seen plenty of examples of ignorance and stupidity on the other side. But obviously not everyone on either side is ignorant or stupid.
I think what makes this so passionate for the people is this: Let's just say that I did want 'gay marriage'. I needed the word 'marriage' to somehow make me feel like I was loved and accepted by all of America (though that will never happen, but let's pretend). You would deny me government given rights based on a religion that I don't ascribe to. I don't want to get married to more than one person. I don't want to stray from the institution. I just want to be with the one I love, be protected by some of the rights afforded to married people and be legally recognized as bonded to another person.
But you wouldn't afford me that right because, though it's never happened before with me, my kind is more likely to succumb to infidelity.
Whether you want your opinion to be that way or not, it's very personal. It's you denying me some form of happiness because of a generalization you've simply accepted in your mind. That's bigotry to me.
And I don't even care about the word 'marriage'.
I understand why people are so upset about this. I understand how it might hurt them for someone to say "No, you're not good enough to be a part of an institution with a failure rate of over 50%."
That's demeaning, that's condescending, and that still doesn't bother me half as much as as the blanket judgment you've exhibited over homosexuals in general. Until that divorce rate starts coming down let's not throw stones in glass houses.
Nope, not me -- especially since I never had any kids except for a now-adult stepdaughter, who by the way is a supporter of same-sex marriage.
Aaron writes: "You have never been elected as some kind of torch bearer for the rest of us to live up to."
Quite true. I am simply one of a very small group of people on OS who have a different point of view on this issue -- a point of view that it seems a majority of people in the country agree with.
Mungular writes: "Plus I'm trying so hard to find a job that I've actually got less time to be on here than when I actually had one."
I know what you mean. I also am unemployed, and the last interview I had, yesterday, took me 20 hours to prepare for. This included studying 55 pages of audit reports and preparing a Powerpoint presentation. And that was in addition to writing a ten page application that included a five page essay on my view of best practices in contracting and procurement. If I survive I'll get a second interview. Amazing what it takes to get a job these days. Next interview I'll probably have to tow a bus with my teeth while walking on a bed of hot coals.
Mungular: "I don't want to get married to more than one person. I don't want to stray from the institution. I just want to be with the one I love, be protected by some of the rights afforded to married people and be legally recognized as bonded to another person. . . . And I don't even care about the word 'marriage'."
Let's say that you lived in a country in which all same-sex couples had -- not just some -- but all of the rights of married people, state, federal, everything. And the only difference was that those relationships were called civil unions rather than marriages. Would that work for you? That's what I support, and I think that's also what Obama supports.
But :) the post was well written Mung- get yourself out there, I'd vote for ya hundred times over!
The wave of the future is clear.
Live with it, get over it, cause there ain't a da*n thing you can do to stop it.
Oh, and lest I forget; go f*ck yourselves.
To help the gay cause or any civilized cause for that matter we must reverse the ignorance of the American people. The same people who voted for Bush.
First, we must explain to the religious ones that they are not Christians and they are not following the morals or instructions of Jesus. Jesus would have been an advocate of gay marriage. Jesus did not write the Bible. The Bible was written by over 35 people who did not know jesus, did not know each other, and lived 150 years after Jesus died. The only Jesus related/friendly manual is the Sermon on the Mount. That is it, and if you read it you will find out that it is gay-friendly, nay, every nice human being-friendly.
This is a very hard task. How can you covince those blood-thirsty, tribal mother fuckers that Jesus was NOT an evil blue-eyed, blonde, beg, borrow and steal, kill every body else, asshole from Lynchburg Virginia, but rather a dark-haired, dark-eyed, brown faced altruist from Nazareth who dressed like an Arab, and who matyred himself for the poor and the weak, and not save some evil soul from Wall Street.
The second thing to do is to "civilize" our culture. We must admit that when it comes to treating other human beings, especially, the weak ones we come way down in the list of nations.
One day, Mungular, I hope, we will join the civilized world and all the Sarah Palins and Ann Coulters will go away.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/sally-kerns-proclamation-morality
Unfortunately the "audience" you refer to, the one obsessed with the M word is made up of idiotlogues. That's my made up term for people who would rather sacrifice any opportunity to obtain their goals, should it require any sort of compromise or delay in order to gain it all in the long run.
Unfortunately the M backers are blind deaf and dumb to the sort of sensible pragmatism you think is smart and sensible.
So blind Etc. they have turned molehills (often unstated policies that made gay relationships difficult to maintain) into tall Mountains (in the form of specific laws, even constitutional amendments banning Gay Marriage).
So blind that they don't even know when they lose. Instead it's always a step towards eventual victory.
Yes, I guess it is, but 'steps toward victory" generally do NOT go backwards.
A time will come when our society is liberated enough to accept all relationships, but when that time comes, the legacy of the M word idiotlogues will loom large.
For overturning amendments is many times more difficult than common Govt. practices that the extreme right wing codified in response to M advocates demanding the opposite.
There is a time and place for every battle.
Unfortunately the M advocates think the time is always now and the place anywhere.
They think this because so many come from gay / lesbian bastions like SF, NY and LA where their local strength confuses them and makes many think they are invincible everywhere. It induces an amnesia for many who came from small towns and rural areas as to severity and strength of those who oppose Gay Marriage.
And thus you have the agenda of the G/M Movement.
It's based on an imaginary strength drawn from what they feel is a universal truth, when it is none of the sort.
Still to see this in print, after years of mindless pro-M propaganda that would flame anyone who disagreed is a breath of fresh air, even if it's late.
Even better after the loss in CA, many big Gay / Lesbian donars to the cause were having second thoughts about giving.
Now with the loss in Maine, I'm pretty sure large amounts of funds formerly fueling these devastating losses will dry up.
And the victory in Washington, the approved civil unions won't help.
If the M movement had only accepted those types of victories earlier, the devastation of gay/lesbian rights would not have happened.
If I were in charge of America's extreme makeover, I would guarantee equal rights for all citizens. Adults would be accepted as adults, and acknowledged to have the ability to choose wisely for themselves.
We built this country so we could live freely, without government interference--and here it is, up in our faces, ruining our lives. Government needs to get out of our lives and guarantee, legally, that it will stay out. We are all equal, and our government must acknowledge this and then get out of our way.
Personally I would like it to be frowned upon for anyone to discuss religion outside of universities and places of worship. And believe it or not, when I was a kid that was the social norm. Talking up one's religious belief to others was considered very bad manners. Because it is.
a better argument.
In passing I have a substitute word which is better than the Marriage word.
Which is a word brings to mind the homogenization process by which a nice stew melds flavors overnight , or 'the beast with two backs' or any smooth'd blending out.
I like an Homage word which evokes Home
and even 'homo' but more importantly, the recognition of another as worth the institutionalization of your relationship.
[Have to admit I tried to avoid homogenization just above but, hell, nuthin's perfect].
Good job, you.
People have a certain idea in there head when they hear the word marriage.
Churches, Minister and God pops into their head.
Take the marriage word out and you win.
You can look at the ballots that were won.
When the word marriage was not involved on the ballot you won.
When it was you lost.
Let the word go and you can win.
Call it whatever the heck you like once you get your rights.
Marriage wer -- and are -- cotracts recognized by the state for the exchange of good and services.
PERIOD!!!
Religion, being the egregious con-game it is, elbowed its way in to "officiate" over the ceremony that sealed the deal -- when Father A handed Father B his daughter -- along wioth the livestock and land.
As for the rest -- http://www.ehrensteinland.com/htmls/library/marriage.shtml
-Fellow Virgo, lesbian, and wine-enthusiast.