Marriage has been around since mandkind has been around.
In all societies and in all regions of the earth.
Common sense would indicate that secular marriage is a fact of life.
And even apart from any secular marriage, we do not need any so-called "covenant of God" or any Biblical interpretation (from a book of never ending contradictions and multiple methods to interpret and misinterpret) to define marriage.
And the prevailing SOCIETAL defination in many countries has ALREADY redefined marriage to INCLUDE same-sex couples. And this trend is NOW happening in this country.
Marriage existed BEFORE any Bible or any Judeo-Christian religion.
But as usual many Christians insist on re-writing history and are trying to preempt the institution of marriage saying that it is a "religious" institution. This in fact flies in the face of both history and reality.
There are quite a few Hindus or Buddhists and other groups out there who would laugh at the ides that the Christians (or their God) invented marriage.
Not only have Christians NOT invented marriage, they do NOT have the right to DEFINE it either!
If "Christians" (or any other religion for that matter) wish to add some significance to THEIR marriage by creating a religious ceremony to celebrate it -- go right ahead. Anything that they can do to add to its significance and dignity -- I'm all for.
But when they start to tell others SORRY BUT WE HAVE DECIDED THAT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED, then I must object.
Why should anyone in THIS country (or elsewhere for that matter) be allowed to limit the civil rights of someone else? This is the height of arrogance and bigotry.
In 1967, the US Supreme Court stated the following in its decision in the case of Loving vs. Virginia: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court extended this right to marry the person of one’s choice to gay men and women.
The effort to enact laws or constitutional amendments, defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman, may at first thought seem both reasonable and common sense; however, what is also does, is ignore the fact that 5 to 10 percent of our population are homosexual or lesbian. At one time, to enjoy the full rights of citizenship, one had to be a white male. Fortunately, since then, new amendments and new laws have been enacted to allow more people to engage in their rightful place as ‘full’ citizens under the law. But now it would appear that the new definition of a ‘full citizen’ now includes only heterosexuals, we see for the first time by law, an attempt to deny a significant portion of our population the full benefits of citizenship. When enacted, these amendments restrict by law one’s right to marry the one they would fall in love with.
Gays only want the EXACT SAME rights heterosexuals automatically assume for themselves -- the right to marry the person they love
But too many Christians seem to think that in the area of civil rights their "vote" should be allowed to limit the civil rights of another. That in this area majority rules. (Just like the majority for so long allowed slavery, segregation, disallowed women equal rights under the law, and until 1967 two people of different races to marry. In fact in Arizona, until their laws were overturned by the Supreme Court, NO bi- or multi-racial person was allowed to marry ANYONE!)
Well let me ask: Are you still going to abide by majority decision when the people CA turn down Proposition 8 in Nov and allow same-sex marriages to continue?
(Current polls have it going down to defeat by over 9% of the vote).