Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It wasn't "defined" until churches and cities started marrying gay people and conservatives got all pissed off and lobbied legislatures to change the laws and constitutions to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Just read that in a banner sponsored by Minnesotans for Marriage.
It's certainly an interesting way of thinking of it.
In the U.S., marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
Should activists, and not the people, be able to re-define it any way they want?
Ah, yes -- the upcoming vote in Minnesota to place a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution -- brought to you in part by the efforts of Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch.
And as everyone now knows, when Mrs. Koch wasn't busy trying her best to 'defend the sanctity of marriage' ... ... she was having an affair with a staffer ...
I for one am eagerly awaiting my ballot so I can cast a vote against such a repugnant amendment!
Marriage has different definitions to different people because of their culture, heritage, ethnicity, religion or lack of a religion, etc.
I see people who are intolerant of other people's marriages wanting to define it according to THEIR definition of marriage.
In any case, I am in favor of legal same-sex marriage.
... and guess what?!?! I predict it will become recognized in more states. We are seeing more and more states legalizing same-sex marriages ... last year New York, this year Maryland and Washington, later this year perhaps Maine, next year perhaps New Jersey.
The only way to enshrine the narrow exclusionary definition of marriage for only heterosexual opposite-gender couples will be a constitutional amendment. That will never happen.
If marriage hadn't been 'redefined', spousal rape would still be legal -- because marriage used to be an institution where a man had conjugal rights, and raping his wife wasn't a crime, it was merely exercising his legal-recognized rights.
Quote:
For the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract.
--Matthew Hale, English jurist and author of Analysis of the Common Law, the first history of English law.
Just read that in a banner sponsored by Minnesotans for Marriage.
It's certainly an interesting way of thinking of it.
In the U.S., marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
Should activists, and not the people, be able to re-define it any way they want?
It is not a question of defining it. The question should be "Should the GOVERMENT be able to tell ADULTS what kind of domestic relationships that they may enjoy? " The answer is NO.
Marriage should be completely out of government in the first place, period.
Agreed! It is a CHURCH function.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... she was having an affair with a staffer ... 
