Same-sex marriage in Iowa

[katiuska]

Iowa upholds gay marriage rights


Iowa's Supreme Court has ruled that a ban on same-sex marriages in the US state was unconstitutional.

The judges rejected an appeal against a lower court's 2007 ruling that the ban violated the rights of gay men and women in the state.

The case stems from a 2005 suit filed by a New York-based gay-rights group on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples.

Iowa becomes the third US state to allow same-sex marriages, joining Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Other states allow civil partnerships or other unions, but these do not carry the same legal weight as marriages.

In its summary, the Supreme Court said the ruling "reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion".

It said the ruling would remove language from Iowa's legal code which limited marriage to being between a man and a woman.

Remaining statutes must also be "interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage", the court said.

Dennis Johnson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said it was "a great day for civil rights in Iowa".

"We have all of you courageous plaintiffs to thank: Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream," he said.

No appeal

Polk County Judge Robert Hanson had ruled in 2007 that Iowa's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, violated the couples' constitutional rights.

But on the same day, Polk County Attorney John Sarcone filed an appeal arguing that the issue should be left to the legislature - that appeal has now been rejected.

The Associated Press reported that Mr Sarcone would not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect in three weeks' time.

Lambda Legal, which filed the case, said the couples cited had been together for between five and 16 years and three of them had children.

The group had said the couples wanted "the responsibilities of marriage and the protections only marriage can provide".

It said the couples' children and any future children should have the right to "have their families treated fairly".

Iowa is the first state to legalise gay marriage in the US Midwest - traditionally a more conservative area of the country.

Analysts said the ruling showed acceptance of same-sex marriage was becoming more mainstream.

The state of California briefly legalised same-sex marriage in 2008.

Thousands of couples were married before the ruling was overturned by a referendum in November.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7981893.stm


First, I'm going to take a moment to feel proud of what I've come to think of as my home state.

...Okay. So, the history is there in the article: this has been in the works since 2007, when Judge Hanson ruled against the gay marriage ban. The decision was immediately suspended and subject to review until yesterday, when same-sex marriage was officially given the green light. No initiatives are in works, and any legislation which would once again ban same-sex marriage can't go through until at least 2012.

My friends who are still in Iowa are pretty happy, and I kind of wish I were there to join in the popping of corks and highing of fives.

It's a funny thing, Iowa's not what most people would call especially liberal, and yet it's preceding a lot of more "progressive" states in this decision. I wouldn't have expected it either. It's not huge on demagoguery either way, though, so you've got people who may not actively support gay rights but simply don't care what two consenting adults do together. If someone actually steps up (as seems to have happened), more power to them.

Some people will resist, of course, and I don't know how this'll play out. Massachusetts actually seems proud of its distinction, and I'm not sure if Iowans will feel that protective of theirs, but I don't know. I do think that universal recognition of same-sex marriage rights is inevitable, sooner or later. Maybe that's overly optimistic, but it seems like increasingly more people don't care either way at worst and actively endorse such rights at best.

[Funka Genocide]

That's some good news, glad to see the trend continuing.

I think one of the biggest problems with the issue of gay marriage is the blatant denial of the constitution in it's application. Basically, the constitution gives states control of certain legal matters, marriage being one of them, and then says that state level laws must be upheld throughout all states, basically, if you're married in Michigan, you're also married in Hawaii, and you still fall under Michigan's rules for marriage.

so since at least one state in the union legalized gay marriage, if you get married there, you are legally married in every state, however the majority of states don't recognize these rights, in direct defiance of federal law written into the constitution.

There's plenty of legal room in there to force something through congress, and eventually lead the way for legalized same sex marriage in every state, but I suppose at the onset of our current shift towards a liberal government there are more pressing issues.

I hope things manage to change in the next 10 years or so.

[Azisien]

I think one of the biggest problems with the issue of gay marriage is the blatant denial of the constitution in it's application. Basically, the constitution gives states control of certain legal matters, marriage being one of them, and then says that state level laws must be upheld throughout all states, basically, if you're married in Michigan, you're also married in Hawaii, and you still fall under Michigan's rules for marriage.

I think a lot of people do things in this way. I am aware of many instances of Americans resident to states where gay marriage is illegal just taking a trip up to Canada and tying the knot, with the certificate being valid in the US.

Still, only 3 states out of 50 is a long way to go. Good progress to see the laws upheld, though. Here's hoping for some kind of snowball effect pulling many other states into the gay marriage laws in the near future.

[Wigmund]

That's some good news, glad to see the trend continuing.

I think one of the biggest problems with the issue of gay marriage is the blatant denial of the constitution in it's application. Basically, the constitution gives states control of certain legal matters, marriage being one of them, and then says that state level laws must be upheld throughout all states, basically, if you're married in Michigan, you're also married in Hawaii, and you still fall under Michigan's rules for marriage.

so since at least one state in the union legalized gay marriage, if you get married there, you are legally married in every state, however the majority of states don't recognize these rights, in direct defiance of federal law written into the constitution.

There's plenty of legal room in there to force something through congress, and eventually lead the way for legalized same sex marriage in every state, but I suppose at the onset of our current shift towards a liberal government there are more pressing issues.

I hope things manage to change in the next 10 years or so.

Unfortunately the Defense of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) passed back in the '90s basically says the states don't have to recognize other states' marriages if said union would be illegal there. So since Arkansas has done the incredibly idiotic thing of amending the state constitution to make gay marriage illegal, my home state's resident idiot population will happily tell married gays: "They'z ain't welcome round heah".

So until DOMA is repelled or overturned, gay marriage will continue to be a state-by-state ordeal for those who want them.


As a personal note, I don't think the government should be dictating who should be able to marry whom. The government should just license civil unions (all the legal benefits/etc. of marriages) between two legally consenting adults (18yrs or over), while the various religious groups can decide for themselves what they recognize as 'marriage' (within the law- so no arranged children weddings or anything like that).

[Nique]

It's a funny thing, Iowa's not what most people would call especially liberal, and yet it's preceding a lot of more "progressive" states in this decision. I wouldn't have expected it either.


For me it's sort of like 'Ok, I'm not ok with the thing itself, and if someone wants to discuss that we can go on about it. But I've got no reason to be a jerk about it and really no right to stop people from doing what they want to do' so it's sort of nice in a way that people won't, y'know, shove their own values down people's throats, which is kind an important value in itself.

As a personal note, I don't think the government should be dictating who should be able to marry whom. The government should just license civil unions (all the legal benefits/etc. of marriages) between two legally consenting adults (18yrs or over), while the various religious groups can decide for themselves what they recognize as 'marriage' (within the law- so no arranged children weddings or anything like that).

See, and then this is all a big political issue and it kind of shouldn't be? I mean yeah if someone wants to co-habitate and have the benefit of that... I mean, you could have a long-term roomate and just want that sort of security or whatever, the relationship could be totally platonic or not or whatever.

[Funka Genocide]

the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional, that was my basic point. sorry I didn't mention it specifically.

[Mirai Gen]

I'm surprised California's Prop 8 hasn't been overturned yet, considering they got a majority of the votes through clever deceptive advertising under the guise of "PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN" which just about everyone fell for.

[Azisien]

See, and then this is all a big political issue and it kind of shouldn't be? I mean yeah if someone wants to co-habitate and have the benefit of that... I mean, you could have a long-term roomate and just want that sort of security or whatever, the relationship could be totally platonic or not or whatever.

It would be nice if marriage wasn't intimately incorporated into various institutions of greater society, but it is, at least in Canada. Having a full blown spouse comes with benefits you can't get with Common Law partners ("long term roommates"). Different country, but is it much different down there? Given the even heavier emphasis on religion, or so it would seem, I could see it being even more incorporated.

So legalize gay marriage, or make a union with equivalent perks and let everybody do it as they wish. Basically what Wigmund said.

[Marelo]

I'm gonna be a jerk and raise the point about separate but equal facilities not working in reality.

So... there it is. In theory, a civil union with the same legal consequence as marriage should work, but that's not how it would work. People would still be discriminated against simply because it's not the same.

[Nique]

According to that logic then, and I mean just carrying it out to it's end result, you pretty much have to have everyone being personally 'OK' with homosexuality, and I don't think that's gonna happen.

I don't really see room for discrimination except wherein it is an person or organizations perogitive to do so under such a system.

[Azisien]

Well if we're talking about reality, it's going to be at least a generation or three before discrimination tones down.

I mean honestly, you think fully legalized marriage for all would just suddenly stop discrimination where civil unions wouldn't?

The other day I was helping a customer rent some movies, and among them was Milk (movie 'bout first openly gay elected official in US, starring Sean Penn, I'm sure you've heard of it). The man turns to his wife and says, "Hey, this is that movie about the fags. I don't want to watch a movie about fags."

Yeah. Legalized marriage will do nothing to end that. For a few decades.

[Nique]

"Hey, this is that movie about the fags. I don't want to watch a movie about fags."


I think that this was the bulk of someone's review of that movie.

In anycase, even if people's personal feelings about homosexuality never really change, their notions about forcing people to do or not do things probably should.

[Archbio]

There's a rather large practical problem, in addition to the fact that I think that it's just plain unacceptable, with creating a separate institution: it makes easier for the two statuses to grow unequal down the road.

[Marelo]

What Archbio said.

I'm not saying that discrimination would just disappear overnight if we just gave gay people marriage, as opposed to a "separate but equal" institution. I'm saying that it becomes a lot harder to actually, tangibly discriminate when they have the exact same marriage license as straight couples. It becomes a lot harder to justify making differences between the two.

[bluestarultor]

I think France has a good idea that would mesh well with this. The place is 99% Catholic, but the state doesn't recognize religious unions. For that, you need a civil union issued by a judge. That means you can be religiously married and get no benefits, or legally married with no religious recognition. Most couples, of course, do both. Or at least the straight ones. I really have no idea on their policies for same-sex couples.

Edit: I wish this would happen here in Wisconsin, but the Constitutional amendment banning it and anything remotely similar passed by a landslide. I'm really ashamed of my state for that, because you'd think people would be reasonable about these kinds of things. Unfortunately, the state is populated by the Religious Right, so you can't even drive a mile (literally) without seeing either a billboard ad trying to pull people into some religious group or one spouting crap about abortion. My area has more of those than actual ads for products. If the question comes up again, I'm sure the town will be plastered with signs denouncing gays.

[Wigmund]

I think France has a good idea that would mesh well with this. The place is 99% Catholic, but the state doesn't recognize religious unions. For that, you need a civil union issued by a judge. That means you can be religiously married and get no benefits, or legally married with no religious recognition. Most couples, of course, do both. Or at least the straight ones. I really have no idea on their policies for same-sex couples.

This, this is what I want to see in America.

[Nique]

Doesn't France have the highest population of people who identify themselves as Atheist per capita?

[Mike McC]

I think France has a good idea that would mesh well with this. The place is 99% Catholic, but the state doesn't recognize religious unions. For that, you need a civil union issued by a judge. That means you can be religiously married and get no benefits, or legally married with no religious recognition. Most couples, of course, do both. Or at least the straight ones. I really have no idea on their policies for same-sex couples.That really isn't that far removed from what we do here. I mean, you can have a wedding ceremony and a priest and all that, but if you don't get the official government sanctioned certificate filled out it's worthless. All the preist does is act like a notary public, just sorta goes... yep, everything is in order here. Only difference is that there only judges (or whatever) can officiate, and not ministers/priests/rabbis/other holy men.

[Premmy]

and ship captains, but yeah, france seems to have the right idea there.
Doesn't France have the highest population of people who identify themselves as Atheist per capita?
maybe, I dont know, what does that have to do with this?
(to be fair I have a vague idea of what you might be getting at, but I need clarification)

[Nique]

Oh the whole being 99% Catholic thing.

[Mike McC]

Why is that the right idea? You still have to go through the government to get the liscense, what does it matter who actually officiates? If the religion doesn't support the marriage, the government still can. Really, all the needs to be done is get the proper politicians into office to make gay marriage legal. In this country, saying that marriages officiated by the minister are no longer valid would probably cause even more upraor than the gay marriage issue.

Just because there are a lot of athiests/agnostics active on the internet does not mean it's a cultural norm.

[Premmy]

I mean from the standpoint of seperation of church and state, the fact that it takes a religious official to validate a legal event is in direct opposition to that, but then, our system works too as in practice it's the same thing it's just I feel that not involving the church from the beginning would have prevented us being in this position in the first place.

[Funka Genocide]

I thought there was a permanent moratorium on religious discussion on these boards?

In any case, I think it's legal for anyone to become a notary public, it's not inherent to the clergy, they just tend to do it so as to be more useful in their occupations, a priest that can't actually marry two people seems sort of like a firefighter without a hose, or something.

Our secular policies are in place to protect the minority, but there's no way to get around public opinion. So long as the majority of people believe one way, forcing an alternative down their throats won't accomplish anything. Changing legislature is great, but changing people's minds is where the real work is to be done.

of course I could go into more specific detail, but again I think religious discussion is still banned, so I'll leave it at that.

[bluestarultor]

Nique: That wasn't exactly a census figure, but what part of France is religious, to my understanding, is largely Catholic.

Funka: It's pretty hard to talk about marriage without bringing in at least a wee bit of religion. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I took it more as a moratorium on discussing details and other stuff that might lead to preaching or actual religious discussion than just saying, "hey, these people have a religion" and leaving it at that. I know I've stumbled onto/over the line a few times, but I've tried to be very careful about what I say about religion on here, since not everyone can take as objective a stance on it as I can.

[Funka Genocide]

well I'm sure the mods are keeping up on it, just didn't want to see anyone get into trouble, might have needed to remind myself a bit too, heh.

[Nique]

Nique: That wasn't exactly a census figure, but what part of France is religious, to my understanding, is largely Catholic.


It was just a question out of sheer morbid curiosity, not trying to nitpick.

[Archbio]

Just because there are a lot of athiests/agnostics active on the internet does not mean it's a cultural norm.

Secularism: it's what's for dinner.

[Preturbed]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_vermont

They're doing it in Vermont now too. Maybe this is the year the walls come tumbling down.

[Premmy]

In any case, I think it's legal for anyone to become a notary public, it's not inherent to the clergy, they just tend to do it so as to be more useful in their occupations, a priest that can't actually marry two people seems sort of like a firefighter without a hose, or something.


oh well in that case, then we need to just allow gay folks to get the liscense, my bad I thought there was something special about the religious ceremony and the government validated it not the other way around, as from a governmental standpoint I did'nt understand the POINT of marriage at all "You two REALLY dig each other, he're's some special legal privileges" this actually brings to mind the question of the necessity for any sort of marriage procedure at all as far as government is concerned, anything I can do in regards to marriage from a legal standpoint I could just as easily do with a series of contracts, or just one big one, with another individual. Marriage just seems like a combo pack of financial and legal benifits..... hmmm....

[Sky Warrior Bob]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_vermont

They're doing it in Vermont now too. Maybe this is the year the walls come tumbling down.

Vermont already had Civil Unions & was the first state to get the ball rolling. Massachusetts came after Vermont, but they went for the full marriage instead of the Civil Union route.

SWB

[bluestarultor]

oh well in that case, then we need to just allow gay folks to get the liscense, my bad I thought there was something special about the religious ceremony and the government validated it not the other way around, as from a governmental standpoint I did'nt understand the POINT of marriage at all "You two REALLY dig each other, he're's some special legal privileges" this actually brings to mind the question of the necessity for any sort of marriage procedure at all as far as government is concerned, anything I can do in regards to marriage from a legal standpoint I could just as easily do with a series of contracts, or just one big one, with another individual. Marriage just seems like a combo pack of financial and legal benifits..... hmmm....

There's stuff that marriage covers that civil unions and other alternatives don't, if I recall correctly. You could probably eventually get the full effect by alternative means, but those means are often ignored. Take, for example, living wills/advance health care directives and such, which often are outright lost or blatantly ignored. If you're married, your spouse is pretty much the go-to person for whether they should pull the plug on you. Unless you establish your life partner specifically as your Power of Attorney, there's jack squat they can do to influence your condition. And even then, there's a chance of legal battles if your parents want to mix it up out of spite. Or if your parents get there first and decide to pull the plug before your life partner can say otherwise, they can sue all they want, but it won't bring you back.

Hell, looking at the Terry Schaivo case, even marriage isn't enough sometimes.

In short, marriage as an institution covers a lot of financial, medical, and other legal areas in one fell swoop, where building a semblance of it from scratch is probably more difficult and expensive than is fair.

[Marelo]

What blues said reflects a little bit what I was trying to say. You can call something separate but equal all you want, that doesn't make it true or right in practice.

[Premmy]

Okay I was obviously misunderstood, or misworded whayt I was trying to say there was I don't see why the government CREATED the statute of marriage in the first place, outside of religious tradition. I wasnt saying civil unions, which I disagree with for the same reasons as previously stated, are an alternative or anything else of that nature, just some minor pondering.

[Archbio]

Okay I was obviously misunderstood, or misworded whayt I was trying to say there was I don't see why the government CREATED the statute of marriage in the first place, outside of religious tradition.

The idea that marriage would be the exclusive domain of religion if not for modern state institutions isn't quite that justified.

[bluestarultor]

The idea that marriage would be the exclusive domain of religion if not for modern state institutions isn't quite that justified.

Well, you have to remember that Europe, and by extension North America, has strong roots in religious rule via the Divine Right of the royalty to rule. The founders of America were all from a society that expected Christianity to be the norm and was more than willing to change it if it wasn't and enforce it once it had a handhold, so a lot of Christian ideas got into the government. The same can largely be said for Mexico and Canada. Marriage has been around since forever as a religious institution worldwide, and in most cases is/was a tool to promote and/or direct result of the domination of the world by men. The main point was essentially to assign a man a mate who was to cater to his every whim. Naturally, somewhere in the development of government worldwide, it was decided that the law should protect what in most cases amounted to property rights, thereby cementing marriage as a social and governmental institution as well.

In short, while marriage now seems to be relatively equal in what we consider the civilized world, we need only take a look at places like Africa and the Middle East to realize that it has roots that could be considered crude and barbaric in the promotion of male dominance. Government only serves to preserve it as the status quo, and we Westerners weren't quite so different only a hundred years or so ago, when the only way a woman could own basically anything was if she was a widow and didn't re-marry.

[Archbio]

Marriage has been around since forever as a religious institution worldwide[...]


That's the part that doesn't quit gel. You're mixing 'marriage as it exists now hasn't existed long', which can't be denied, with 'marriage as an insitution that isn't fundamentally religious is a brand new thing', which is rather false, if useful for a certain political agenda. Unless 'forever' represents a short view of history.

That was my only point. Western countries are currently moving away from marriage as an insitution that was coopted for a long time by religion, but secular marriage isn't new.

[bluestarultor]

That's the part that doesn't quit gel. You're mixing 'marriage as it exists now hasn't existed long', which can't be denied, with 'marriage as an insitution that isn't fundamentally religious is a brand new thing', which is rather false, if useful for a certain political agenda. Unless 'forever' represents a short view of history.

That was my only point. Western countries are currently moving away from marriage as an insitution that was coopted for a long time by religion, but secular marriage isn't new.

Maybe I didn't express it well enough, but my point is that since time immemorial, men have been claiming women, in some way, as "theirs." Usually, this happened through religious rites, since government evolved as our populations grew and condensed and people no longer lived in fragmented family groups. When government DID evolve, chances were that religion was already there and it just reinforced the rites that were in place. In most cases, especially earlier ones, rule was based on the idea that a higher power granted someone the right to it, so in terms of laws, it's nice to keep up that pretense by incorporating the religious rules set forth by the higher power you're claiming is behind you. Looking back into where we were not all too long ago, monarchy was the preferred form of government in the world. In fact, we still have them in some places. Democracy, while it took hold in Athens centuries ago, has not seen success until the last few hundred years, starting with America (and to a rockier extent, France). Secular rule on a grand scale IS a relatively new development, and it's safe to disregard small scales like tribal examples because the peoples involved generally have compatible beliefs and therefore very little religious conflict that would force secular recognition of a bond between a man and his wife.

The truth is that secular recognition of marriage is a hazard of maintaining the rites of religion and that secular marriage has only really developed in the last hundred years or so, as a progression of increasing secularism in government as more systems of belief are added to the mix and it becomes harder to favor one or a few without drawing ire from those excluded. Atheists are now allowed all the rights of marriage that people of religion are because of the legal ramifications of a formerly religious institution which were granted during times when only one or a few religious beliefs were the norm and were granted the favor of the ruling government to keep things friendly.

My use of the term "forever" was hyperbole, but deliberate, in that religious rites predate most recognizable government, be it monarchical, democratic, or theocratic, by safely thousands of years, because religions were around long before complex societies and in many cases probably helped create them in a progression from family groups to tribal groups and larger until such time someone has amassed enough power to unify it all into a semblance of regional government.

If you can provide examples predating the late 1700s (when the French and American Revolutions took place) of secular marriage, by all means, do so. I might well be wrong, as my knowledge of Asian history is nowhere near as good as Western history and China might well have developed it before Europe in its extra 5000 years or so of history at the time.

[Archbio]

If you can provide examples predating the late 1700s (when the French and American Revolutions took place) of secular marriage, by all means, do so

Marriage in Ancient Rome. Well, that was hard. The same seems to be more or less true for almost anything with Ancient in front of it. You're confusing things. An ancient civilization with a government indistinguishable from religion may have viewed marriage as less of a religious affair than the European civilization at the dawn of the modern age.

[bluestarultor]

Marriage in Ancient Rome. Well, that was hard. The same seems to be more or less true for almost anything with Ancient in front of it. You're confusing things. An ancient civilization with a government indistinguishable from religion may have viewed marriage as less of a religious affair than the European civilization at the dawn of the modern age.

Actually, I was going to post an edit addressing that, but I decided that excluding it because of its minimal influence on modern times due to its utter collapse and society needing to start from the bottom again would just sound dickish. Really, though, they're a very good example of exactly my point, so let's break that down, instead.

You have:
- A massive, sprawling empire.
- Many different peoples absorbed.
- A multitude of different religions that are impossible to consolidate.
- Enhanced travel due to the Roman road system.

With travel introducing many systems of belief together, you have conditions very similar to those produced by America's melting pot (on a scale that's scarily comparable). In terms of the Roman take on things, their conquests were all about amassing more money, so as long as people sat quiet and paid their taxes, everything was fine. In terms of the religious ceremonies of marriage, very few were not left intact, minus the Celts. In terms of Roman record-keeping, having some way of keeping track of these unions was necessary for the books back home, so a secular form of recognition was in order. Whether that translated into purely secular marriages, I honestly don't know, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me, since it wouldn't interfere with taxes, and if I recall correctly, there was a marriage tax on top of it.


In short, while Rome had very little influence on the modern world due to the loss of pretty much all their progress for thousands of years, it does provide a good parallel to modern views on secular marriage.

[Archbio]

Ancient Egypt didn't have:

- A massive, sprawling empire.
- Many different peoples absorbed.
- A multitude of different religions that are impossible to consolidate.

Yet,

"Marriage in ancient Egypt was a totally private affair in which the state took no interest and of which the state kept no record. There is no evidence for any legal or religious ceremony establishing the marriage, although there was probably a party." (http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190170/)

So, I'll take your explanation with a grain of salt.

Note that it's probable that other such examples can be dug up with minimal effort, but my original (modest) point is already well backed up: it's not new. You seem to insist that it was always deviation in some way but I don't think that's been shown, not with the Romans or in general, to be true.

[bluestarultor]

Technically, when the state doesn't care one way or another, I'd struggle to call it a secular marriage. I mean, it's not necessarily a religious marriage (although the party might count as a stretch), but we're dealing with state-sanctioned unions in this discussion and that certainly wasn't.

Also, Egypt DID conquer different people, like the Jews. Just not on the level of Rome. Also, they DID conquer Lower Egypt, Kush, Canaan, Cyprus, and Syria, and otherwise were conquered by or had contact with Palestine, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Nubians, and the Romans. They weren't as isolated as you seem to think.

Edit: Oh, and Libya.

[Fifthfiend]

Okay I was obviously misunderstood, or misworded whayt I was trying to say there was I don't see why the government CREATED the statute of marriage in the first place, outside of religious tradition.

For exactly the reason you said, which is that it's a huge combo pack of legal rights and obligations wrapped up in a fancy dinner party and an oversized cake. You might as well ask why people go around buying cars, when what they really want is to propel themselves to a destination via a four-wheeled platform powered by internal combustion. It's like, well, yes, that is what that is.


I thought there was a permanent moratorium on religious discussion on these boards?

A good point; I'm gonna say this all is okay in that it's mostly been brought up regarding religion's history and social role and not like, which one is the Right And True One etc. etc.

[Archbio]

Technically, when the state doesn't care one way or another, I'd struggle to call it a secular marriage. I mean, it's not necessarily a religious marriage (although the party might count as a stretch), but we're dealing with state-sanctioned unions in this discussion and that certainly wasn't.

It's a non-religious marriage. If it had been state sanctioned, you'd have counted it as religious purely because ultimately to would mean it would be recognized by the authority of a dude symbolizing both a dude with a bird's head and a mummified dude, but it still wouldn't have been religious.

I mean, here you are, saying that Ancient Egyptian marriage is fully outside the bounds of this discussion*, except in as much as you could claim it as a religious marriage. Somehow. You can't, but you still try to make it look like you can.

I mean, if you think a party can be said to make something into a religious institution (in the same sense that religious marriage as we know it, as the purview of a religious authority, is a religious institution) while keeping a straight face, but nothing short of the modern secular state can make a marriage into a secular marriage, then there's not much point in this exchange. There's some amount of begging the question involved, methink.

I never meant to argue that non-religious marriage is historically the norm, but rather that it's not as radical a departure from the historical norm (if such a thing can be defined) as it's often portrayed. A civil or even private marriage in ancient times that has religious elements only because of the diffuse pervasiveness of superstitution, religion and/or a mythological view of the world could be said to be at least at an equal distance between a marriage that's not religious at all and marriage as the exclusive purview of a religious authority.

Something that struck me as funny in the interval was how my Roman example was shot down by a bogus explanation of how it totally doesn't count rather than by the fact that it may be a genuinely bogus example, upon giving it more than a moment's thought. It's a subject that would deserve further reading.

Also, Egypt DID conquer different people, like the Jews. Just not on the level of Rome. Also, they DID conquer Lower Egypt, Kush, Canaan, Cyprus, and Syria, and otherwise were conquered by or had contact with Palestine, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Nubians, and the Romans. They weren't as isolated as you seem to think.

As I seem to think? What? I don't seem to think anything that contradict any of this.** Go easy on the whole lecturing thing, Blue Realtor.

What I implied Egypt wasn't:

- A massive, sprawling empire.
- Many different peoples absorbed.
- A multitude of different religions that are impossible to consolidate.

How does the absence of this translate into total isolation? That's a rethorical question, it plainly doesn't.

*It doesn't fall outside of the scope of my point, so if you think my point falls outside of the boundaries of the discussion it might have been more delicate not to address it at all.

**Not that I pay much attention to utterly gratuitous, superficial lecture on Historical subjects.

[bluestarultor]

I'm just going to cut this argument off, because it's getting out of hand. I'll concede the point and step down.

However, I must comment that I've been on this forum for over two years now and there's really no reason people should still be getting my name wrong, especially if they're going to try to separate it out. You've been here long enough to have seen it and are old enough that even if you somehow haven't, you should be able to read the letters. I take offense at that specifically because it's not the first time I've seen you put it that way.




Edit: I already apologized for this via PM, but I'd like to say here that in terms of marriage in Egypt, I had a brain slip this morning on what I was trying to argue. Archbio is right in that the process described could well be considered secular, since the article mentions that no particular religious ceremonies are recorded as having taken place. Odd for ancient Egypt, since they were a very mystical people, but also entirely possible. The slip came in that we're talking about state-sanctioned secular marriages, and my brain didn't make a proper disconnect when presented with an example of seemingly secular marriage that wasn't sanctioned or really recognized properly by the state. In short, I wasn't ready for a third alternative and put my foot in my mouth. I'll also admit that the idea is still sinking in as I try to decide whether the parties mentioned class it more as a religious union given the lack of state recognition or if the lack of discovery of clearly-established rituals push it into secularism despite it.

I'm ready to continue discussing the topic civilly at this point, so I'd like to start back up by saying, no, apparently secular marriage isn't new, but it's certainly new since the collapse of the ancient world. By all means, said collapse had very little influence on modern culture because the illiterate masses had no means of continuing the advancement those cultures were known for, and as such, all their artifacts were regarded with wonder, even into modern times and the present. We're only now beginning to piece together how many things were built, from statuary to monuments, only because of our ability to measure and analyze it all with modern technology. Had we not had to rediscover all that was lost on our own, world society would be centuries more advanced right now in several disciplines of math and science, and maybe society, as well. It took us long enough to re-establish secular forms of marriage, and a look at several ancient cultures, including the Greeks and Japanese, tells us that given proper time, homosexuality can become acceptable, though not necessarily as a rule of progression, depending on how the framework of society treats it in the first place, as evidenced by the harsh take on it as seen in the Middle East.

TL;DR: Yeah, I fuzzked up this morning, I still can't decide how to class Egypt, and my view is that we're basically on catch-up duty when it comes to much of the ancient world because the people were damn smart, so I really can't reconcile indications that they deserve credit for current developments, though they're quite useful for examining them via parallels.


P.S. As a small rebuttal, Egypt circa 1450BC extended all the way through the Holy Land up to Turkey, roughly encapsulating what is now Isreal, Lebanon, most of Syria, and maybe a bit of Jordan, and all the way down into a good chunk of Sudan, with a thin strip hugging the coast through everything up to the top half of modern Djibouti. That's a fair share of land, with many different peoples, who were liable to have many different beliefs.

That said, I'm not going to press the issue further to avoid derailing the topic completely, but I must say, I personally consider that to fulfill the stated criteria.