Gay Marriage comes to Indiana?

[afleitch]

This is simply political brinksmanship by the dems and the coerced some goprs from bigger cities to play along. The Senate will tell them to put the sentence back in.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

It will pass as unamended and the people will affirm traditional marriage. Either way we will win.

"traditional marriage" meaning a woman becoming a man's property? yeah, you'd love that, wouldn't you?

The definition of marriage does not encompass "a woman becoming a man's property".

Sure it can, if you define marriage that way.

No; It does not and never has formed a part of the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage. It may have formed part of the rights awarded as a result of a marriage under law but it has not formed part of the definition of marriage.

You're not particularly bright.

For example, the England and Wales Marriage Act of 1753 (the first to require the formal registration of marriage with regard to vassals of the state; in this instance the Church of England) only recognised a marriage conducted by a Church of England priest. It took a short while to legally recognise that the exemptions of the same act for Quakers and Jews actually meant they could marry according to their law. Catholic, non religious and other religious marriages were not recognised until 1836. There was no indication of gender in the 1753 Act; it simply said 'persons', The same is true of the 1836 Act.

That little curio aside, all marriages through solemnisation (vows) espoused the centuries old principle of erunt animae duae in carne una In marriage, canonical law (which was interchangeable for 'legal' until acts that began to secularised marriage such as the 1836 act) inferred that the very being or legal existence of the woman was suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband. That meant a man could beat his wife and it was not recognised as assault. He could rape her and it was not recognised as rape because her rights were suspended. A bit like the assault of and rape of a slave for example (and I'm not being hyperbolic legally speaking)

Christian teaching (Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 11:3-9, Timothy 2:11-12) and the teachings from Aquinas to Luther filtered into canonical law and again, canon law on marriage was essentially the de facto law on marriage and the rights of married women until secularisation.

So yes, women were chattel. Because women, in the words of Aquinas were 'defect(ive) in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives' then their 'patronage' was overlooked by their father and their brother and then by their husband. Women were not treated as equal and independent. Marriage was the purpose by which that treatment was codified.

[afleitch]

You're not particularly bright.

I really hate to bring this up again and again but you force me to; It's highly unlikely that someone with a scholarship to Oxford for a course that is extremely academically selective is "not particularly bright". The evidence is against you on this one.

For example, the England and Wales Marriage Act of 1753 (the first to require the formal registration of marriage with regard to vassals of the state; in this instance the Church of England) only recognised a marriage conducted by a Church of England priest. It took a short while to legally recognise that the exemptions of the same act for Quakers and Jews actually meant they could marry according to their law. Catholic, non religious and other religious marriages were not recognised until 1836. There was no indication of gender in the 1753 Act; it simply said 'persons', The same is true of the 1836 Act.

That little curio aside, all marriages through solemnisation (vows) espoused the centuries old principle of erunt animae duae in carne una In marriage, canonical law (which was interchangeable for 'legal' until acts that began to secularised marriage such as the 1836 act) inferred that the very being or legal existence of the woman was suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband. That meant a man could beat his wife and it was not recognised as assault. He could rape her and it was not recognised as rape because her rights were suspended. A bit like the assault of and rape of a slave for example (and I'm not being hyperbolic legally speaking)

Christian teaching (Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 11:3-9, Timothy 2:11-12) and the teachings from Aquinas to Luther filtered into canonical law and again, canon law on marriage was essentially the de facto law on marriage and the rights of married women until secularisation.

So yes, women were chattel. Because women, in the words of Aquinas were 'defect(ive) in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives' then their 'patronage' was overlooked by their father and their brother and then by their husband. Women were not treated as equal and independent. Marriage was the purpose by which that treatment was codified.

This is entirely true; men had absolute ownership of women as handed down by law through a marriage. That was a right, as I emphasised above. That didn't form part of the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage. While it may not have been defined explicitly under the England and Wales 1753 Marriage Act in England and Wales, by "persons", it is unambiguous that it refers to one man and one woman. Otherwise, how would the very principle of erunt animae duae in carne una if two persons of the same gender were wed? Which person would have total ownership over the other? Also, do you have evidence of any same-sex marriages being carried out in 18th Century England?

the definition of marriage also isn't restricted to one man and one woman, champ. good try, though.

Actually it is, and always has been, in the state of Indiana.

Do you know what marriage, in the strictest sense is? Do you know why we have it? Why do we have marriage defined as a legal act either in canon or civil law? It's not exclusively conducive to sex, which we can all do. Nor is it exclusively conducive to interpersonal sexual relationships. People can have life long relationships of value without being married. Marriage is entirely about property. It is to ensure that property is managed and inherited because that is conducive to a civil society. Marriage up until very recently in the west was exclusively about property. Yes it was about love and 'Jesus' and everything else in it's ceremonial form but strictly it was about property. Now luckily men and women today, broadly speaking are equal in law. They are equal in law when they are born, when they are children and when they get married. If that marriage is dissolved then there is a fair hearing (one should hope) concerning that dissolution. However that, as I explained wasn't always the case.

You however have the cart leading the horse. You are suggesting that there is marriage which is not about property and then there are 'rights' which are not about marriage but may inform the nature of that marriage; i.e men having chattel rights over women and exclusive rights over the children basically during her entire lifetime. But marriage didn't come first. Women's subordination to men at all stages in her life; from her fathers dominion over her as a child and as an asset to be traded, adult males sexual dominion over her in adulthood and so on was the catalyst for establishing marriage as a contractual binding societal agreement. That is why there is marriage. Religions and customs born in cultures of exclusive patriarchy informed those cultural and religious laws that defined marriage. That is why justification in the Christian West for 'erunt animae duae in carne una'; the very words spoken in the marriage vow was intertwined in the set definition of women being subordinate in deed, mind and body to menfolk. Definitions have now changed and evolved, as has marriage but do not think for a second that marriage; an institution in civil and canon law enacted by men alone had nothing to do the subordination of women.

[afleitch]

I wasn't aware characteristics were civil rights.

Why is it so important to you that the homosexualist agenda is is shoved in our faces?

Why is it important to shove your right wing agenda in mine? Being right wing is a choice so go do it at home and keep it away from children.

[afleitch]

I wasn't aware characteristics were civil rights.

Why is it so important to you that the homosexualist agenda is is shoved in our faces?

Why is it important to shove your right wing agenda in mine? Being right wing is a choice so go do it at home and keep it away from children.

You're a right winger (in the UK context). Are you an official Tory member or just a supporter?

I was a member. I stood in the 2007 locals.