Gay Marriage; Separation of Church and State

I like marriage though, and a lot of people do.

I just think gay people should have the option to get married -- whether they do or not is of course up to them. Not my place to decide for them whether they really want to get married IMO.

(How does the institution of marriage shun people exactly?)

Marriage is and always has been about rights in property. When most of the population were serfs, or even free men and women who had no free hold, they were far more likely just to live together and rear their children without benefit of clergy. Even as late as the Edwardian era, this was true. Robert Roberts, in what is now in its own right a classic--The Classic Slum: Salford in the First Quarter of the Century--says that fully three quarters of couples rearing children had never married. This is the slum which Friedrich Engels described in Conditions of the Working Class.

Essentially, no one cared how people without property lived their lives. The United States became a different case because there was land enough for everyone, and most immigrants after the revolution came precisely because they could have land, which they couldn't in Old Europe. This was even so for convicts in the era before the revolution. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was descended from a pair of convicts who met in England, and married in Maryland after they had earned their tickets of leave. By the time Thomas and his sister were born, the family was enormously prosperous, and the "first family" of their western Virginia county.

Property ownership makes all the difference. The religious right tries to make it an issue of a sacramental nature, but marriage has always been about rights in property. I don't deny that married couples often love one another, or that they marry for love. But the institution is concerned with rights in property.

i agree that everyone should have the right to a marriage of their choosing

personally i don't see the appeal, but i guess folks do

Do you believe that say, African Americans and Native Americans would have done better setting up an alternate country and economy, dj?

Gotcha.

That is a topic I know nothing about, but if I may venture a guess based on heterosexual cases ? Where one is the natural parent they will have priority unless they are proven to be totally irresponsible (rather unlikely) . Where both have adopted they would probably try to ensure the kids see as much of both as is humanely possible...extended family would also come into this....

The ideal is often not achievable because of work considerations.... sometimes one has to change location and they go back to court . Sometimes courts can see that will happen and make a decision so they dont have to come back...it wastes the courts time and puts further stress on the children .

Often they will keep the kids in the care of the parent who has seen them the most, ie the stay at home parent . This also ensures money continuing to support them from the one who worked .

Courts dont really worry about the adults, they try to do whats best for the children, sometimes appointing them their own representative .

You won me...why not indeed ?

I think it is...its like death statistics...you have to get to that stage to have a certain chance but how many fell by the way side ? The average over a lifetime of marriage is against making it these days, though we don't have statistics from those not yet old... applying projections, most will end in divorce . The only way this can be changed is to factor in old people currently married, which is not a reasonable thing to do .

That was my thought. I couldn't imagine it being handled too differently - otherwise I'm sure that would be another cause for uproar.