The puckered Right is screaming for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as something sacred between a man and woman. Never mind the blatant attempt to abuse the Constitution. It's most annoying at how backward, how archaic that thread of thinking has become. These from a Google search:

From Catholic Encyclopedia - History of Marriage


"The word marriage may be taken to denote the action, contract, formality, or ceremony by which the conjugal union is formed or the union itself as an enduring condition. In this article we deal for the most part with marriage as a condition, and with its moral and social aspects. It is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. "Legitimate" indicates the sanction of some kind of law, natural, evangelical, or civil, while the phrase, "husband and wife", implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union. The last two characters distinguish marriage, respectively, from concubinage and fornication. The definition, however, is broad enough to comprehend polygamous and polyandrous unions when they are permitted by the civil law; for in such relationships there are as many marriages as there are individuals of the numerically larger sex. Whether promiscuity, the condition in which all the men of a group maintain relations and live indiscriminately with all the women, can be properly called marriage, may well be doubted. In such a relation cohabitation and domestic life are devoid of that exclusiveness which is commonly associated with the idea of conjugal union."

From About Marriage - History of Marriage


"Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.


Some varieties of marriage are


polygamy


polygyny


polyandry


endogamy


exogamy


common law marriage


monogamy


Different periods of time and different cultures have very different histories when it comes to women. Ancient Egypt, in theory, gave women equal rights, but it wasn't always practiced. Medieval women faced dual responsibilities to religion and marriage.


Throughout history, and even today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for economic liasons.


Some marriages were by proxy, some involved a dowry (bride's family giving money or presents to the groom or his family), some required a bride price (the groom or his family giving money or a present to the bride's family), few had any sort of courtship or dating, but most had traditions.


One nearly universal tradition is that of the engagement ring. This custom can be dated back to the ancient Romans. It is believed that the roundness of the ring represents eternity. Therefore, the wearing of wedding rings symbolizes a union that is to last forever. It was once thought that a vein or nerve ran directly from the "ring" finger of the left hand to the heart.


The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).


Joseph Campbell, in the Power of Myth, mentions that the Twelfth century troubadours were the first ones who thought of courtly love in the same way we do now. The whole notion of romance apparently didn't exist until medieval times, and the troubadours.


The statement of Pope Nicholas I in which he declared in 866, "If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void", shows the importance of a couple's consent to marriage. It has remained an important part of church teaching through the years.


There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.


Years later, the Puritans viewed marriage as a very blessed relationship that gave marital partners an opportunity to not only love, but also to forgive.


Many people hold the view that regardless of how people enter into matrimony, marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. That concept of marriage hasn't changed through the ages."

Histories of marriage show that it isn't one concept set in stone for all eternity. It has changed, mutated, and evolved depending on the society. With that how about a simple change. Instead of defining marriage as a "legitimate union between husband and wife" (which doesn't make sense by the way because you're neither until after the marriage), how about "marriage is a legitimate union between consenting adults." Plain, simple, flexible. Like I mentioned in a previous rant, children are an option in a marriage whether as a result of sex or adoption, and should not be an implicit part of the definition. That is, "husband" and "wife" implies incorrectly the ability to have children. Instead of ability to have children it's the desire that's more important. The desire to assume the responsibility of parenthood whether through natural means or by adooption.

This definition also avoids the stereotypical terms of "wife" and "husband" and allows the couple to define themselves e.g. "significant other", "better half", "life partner". Consider this possibility: Who is whom if a man and woman are married as husband and wife and they both get sex changes. By marriage the wife is now a man and the husband is now a woman. Do they have to get re-married? I know - silly, stupid, and facetious - but I really did have a valid train of thought there.

What do you think?

Constitutional Abuse

Flag burning and now marriage. Both have been recent subjects for Constitutional Amendments usually at the behest of the Puckered Right, whom in the name of Patriotism and all that is American, seek to destroy America and redefine Patriots to mean essentially those that agree with them. These people who want to amend the Constitution fail to understand that the Constitution is not a axe to use to kill your enemies. Instead it is something to protect those from the axe. That's why it guarantees so many Freedoms instead of taking them away. Flag burning is a way to demonstrate unrest and unhappiness with the status quo. It is a form of speech, eloquent in its defiance of a seemingly sacred symbol. Amend for flag burning and do you Amend for other symbols - the Bald Eagle, the Liberty Bell, the White House? Where would it end?

Marriage as a Constitutional Amendment is ridiculous as history has shown that what defines a marriage changes. As I wrote above perhaps the definition of marriage should be (but not as an Amendment or maybe so if I get credit):


"marriage is a legitimate union between consenting adults."

If anything the Constitution needs to be reinforced, especially in the area of Separation of Church and State but read my crap for any bit and you know it's a pet peeve. I recently read somewhere a list of those countries where Religion wasn't a part of Politics and, of course, they list off the worst of the worst Totalitarian nations in history. As if you remove Religion from Politics and automatically your country goes into a dictatorship. Why not the reverse? List the countries that did or do have Religion as a main part of Politics and you can create an equally vile list. Point being that removing Religion from our Politics will not change our system of Government. As it is, we're a Meritocracy dangerously close to becoming a Dictatorship and that's with Religion. Rant over.

Nothing on TV

Someone convince me otherwise but there's really nothing on TV and by TV I mean normal airwaves - no cable, no satellite. I'm old school. Anyway, I'm down to watching 3 shows:


Alias because of those J.G. dimples and the occasional flashback of Gena Olin. Yes, I'm a male piggy - obvious aini't it?


Angel - it became a habit. I had great hopes that Charisma Carpenter would return to the series but The Powers That Be killed her character.


Wrestling - what can I say. I've been watching for over 35 years. It's a silly, stupid addiction despite the lack of Trish Status on Smackdown.


I used to watch The Practice. After the series housecleaning at the season start, I liked the new slimy attorney but after about 5 episodes it was more of same. Slimy attorney does good after all. Reality shows are boring. Why not have a reality show of people watching reality shows, or just watching period. Neilson could hook up little cameras as part of their surveys. Award shows are more boring. Same old celebrities showing off the clothing du jour from the same old designers. Who cares? I looked outside the other day and there was this bright glowy thingy in the sky. It was warm and inviting. Mmmmmm, sunlight....

tBlog

Even though you can't do batch posts to tBlog I have do give it kudos. The same day I opened LMM I got invites for "friends" and comments about my posts. The comments were great and mostly positive. But even the people who disagreed with what I wrote answered in a mature, non-threatening manner. None of this "You suck!" crap. Very nice. If I'm not careful I might find myself in a real intellectual dialogue using multi-syllable words. Wow!