Let it be known that I am 100% in favor of providing gay couples with all of the benefits of civil marriage. I believe that the union should be supported by religious organizations, but I also recognize the privilege that every religious organization in the USA has to choose to support this and any other marriage or to not support any sort of marriage.
On one of the discussion boards that I frequent, someone asked:
Now why did Solomon have hundreds of wives and concubines???
I think it’s because women were chattel. Cattle were chattel. Soloman was rich. He had lots of chattel: women, cattle, sheep, chickens, slaves, … you get the idea. Someone else pointed out that many marriages were political, and no doubt some of those wives sealed a deal or two.
Here’s another quote; this time by our dear president.
The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring — honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith.
Perhaps if he had said, “The union of a man and women …”, I might buy that it is an enduring institution encouraged by
somemost religious faiths. But that the union has been and should always be between a man and a woman, obviously not. It’s in the bible, after all.
Could I possibly expand this to include same sex marriage? It would be a tenuous argument, at best. I have to say, tho, that I am glad that the reactionary religious types aren’t pushing for marriage between one man and several or hundreds of women, as evidenced in the bible.
But I’m still baffled by why people are so hostile to same sex CIVIL marriages. It’s not about religion. It’s about a legal contract between 2 people. Religious institutions don’t have to recognize it. The Catholic church already does that. Getting married in the church has a very definite meaning that is different from civil marriages.