I agree, if you want to take on this fight you are going to have to go directly after these "conservative/evangelical Christian" types and expose them for what they are. This would be like the civil rights movement trying to compromise with the KKK.

Good luck, Bill. I changed my opinion on the matter several years ago so it is possible to change minds.

__________________

1980 300TD-China Blue/Blue MBTex-2nd Owner, 107K (Alt Blau) OBK #15
'06 Chevy Tahoe Z71 (for the wife & 4 kids, current mule) '03 Honda Odyssey (son #1's ride, reluctantly) '99 GMC Suburban (255K+ miles, semi-retired mule) 21' SeaRay Seville (summer escape pod)

I'd spend some time reading up on the history of marriage in Christian thought so the battle can be fought on enemy ground. The Catholic church sees it as a sacrament but it has a very mixed history in Christianity, beginning with Paul who does not see it as a social good, only a social necessity, and later with Jesus who has some pretty anti-family values assertions and as far as we know, wasn't married and didn't condemn homosexality. Not to mention the Old Testament which has duties to marry your sister in law under certain conditions.
The idea that 'marriage' is a religious concept needs to be directly challenged.

Anyone know the history of marriage in US law as regards it's religious or secular foundations?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

In answer to your question, "No".
But I suspect that the governments merely recognized what already existed; that marriage was a covenant, contract if you will, between a man and a woman.
I don't know if there was ever anything more than that.

But waiting for an authority to speak.......

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Kerry, I wouldn't even start down that path. It should not matter if 'marriage' was originally a religious concept. Under US law it's a civil institution with legal and financial impact. If someone argues that the term is religious, that term should be removed from law and replaced with a civil term for everyone. They can't have it both ways; it's either a religious term that should be eliminated from US law, or it's a civil term that's applicable to everyone.

The government, state or federal, should not be in the "marriage" license business and certainly doesn't need to have a monopoly on it. The could certainly be in the civil union business, which is gender blind, just as it is in the camping, fishing and driver's registration end of the business.

somewhat confusing.........or, perhaps the term enjoys multiple meanings......

That's one way to do it. The alternative is to establish that "marriage" is a civil term with regard to the law, regardless of it's history.

this one is somewhat difficult for many. take the top three dictionaries, i.e. Oxford, Websters and Funk & Wagnalls. now, look at first edition versus later editions definitions of the word "marriage". notice the meanings are different in the different dictionaries. also, note that first edition meanings have changed over the course of TIME. which means only one thing. definitions of words are NEVER static. they are in a CONSTANT state of flux. kinda like shootin' a moving target. never can pin it down. welcome to the english "language".

It will probably require a few court cases to pin down the legal definition.

There are several layers of problems to be overcome.

At the state level, where marriage laws are enacted, voter sentiment is against legalizing gay marriage. Nothing new there. We all know this. In the few states where gay marriage or "civil unions" are permissible, they exist as a result of legislative actions or judicial decisions. Correct me if I am wrong, but in most (all?) states the issue has been put on the ballot for voter approval, it has been defeated. So, it will be a long time coming before a significant number of states grant "civil union" status. Much longer still, imo, to have many states approve gay marriage. Then what?

At the federal level, which I think is where the "quickest" route to any serious change lies, there are laws like the Defense of Marriage Act, (which I believe states a marriage is between a man and a woman) and the big bully, the Internal Revenue Code. One need not look far into its pages to find the applicable law:

Code Section 1.
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
1(a)(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
1(a)(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),............"

And the regulations thereunder:
Regulation §1.1-1.,Internal Revenue Service,Income tax on individuals

For the computation of tax in the case of a joint return of a husband and wife, or a return of a surviving spouse, for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1971, see section 2. The computation of tax in such a case for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1970, is determined ...........

So, the IRC says "married individual" and "his spouse". The regulations say "husband" and "wife". Different words. Same meaning.

Until the law is changed at the federal level, what Mass. or Vt. or Iowa or NJ do is nice, but it's not even "half a glass". The path to total change has begun in California. We discussed this in another thread a while back. This case will end up in the 9th Circuit. Whoever loses will appeal to the Supreme Court. If they hear the case, and if they rule favorably on gay marriage, then that be that.
Finally, any federal change will come from the Court. Hell will freeze over before Congress approves gay marriage (or a proposed constitutional amendment on it.)

We had a lot of hot air on both sides of this issue in NJ for the last couple of years. Our now gone Governor supported the legislature in trying to pass a gay marriage law on his way out the door. It didn't come up for a vote, despite both houses in NJ being decidely democratic.

I've wondered for a few years at least, why they didn't back door this by changing state laws to get out of the marriage business altogether and call everything civil unions. But I suppose such a step might imperil their citizens' rights vis a vis the many federal laws dealing with "marriage" in one way or another.

Enjoy doing what you want to do.
Illegitimi non carborundum

When sodomy laws were dropped by the states, prohibiting the sanction of a criminal act, there no longer existed a rational legal basis for denying same sex unions. "Sanctity" is not a phrase often used in justifying a legal theory.

As per Scalia if my memory serves me correctly, in his dissent in Lawrence v Texas.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I don't personally care what the word marriage means to christians; if it's so sacred why do they have divorce rates that equal the general population? Christians are usually the biggest bunch of hypocrits anyone will ever encounter. My deal is to draw the discussion AWAY from religous zealots and appeal to the conservative to juxtapose their beliefs to be more in line with wanting a more stabilizing effect on society by allowing all people the option of entering a relationship stabilized by marriage vows.

__________________
TXBill



Former owner of a few diesel MB cars
1998 Lexus ES 300 In Chicago We Trust

Well something will have to change. The non hetrosexual portion of society is larger than the majority of people imagine. .

I have always thought most gay people were not gay by choice particularily. Pre disposition was the primary factor in my mind. I just happen not to be one person that is pre disposed.

I also believe the same sex marriage issue is primarily a left over of the strong religious position that once dominated society. As formal religion is substantially weaker now and seems to continue on a constant downward spiral. Same sex marriage will in all likelyhood be universally legalised at some point.

I am not even really sure if a lot of noise will quicken it very much. It certainly should not delay it further though. Best of luck.