The history of who allows or disallows, who performs or allows to be performed the function of marriage is long and varied. Different cultures have applied different principles and the expectations for what constitutes a marriage…and for how long…have often been in flux.
   In the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church began sanctioning marriages many people objected it for fear that some day the churches (just Catholic at that time and place) would decide who could and who could not marry rather than simply recognizing a civil action.
    In our own country when the government started issuing marriage licenses as a record keeping measure, doomsayers predicted someday the government would control marriage, not simply recognize a civil action that had taken place.
    Fortunately, that never occurred. You don;t need the governments’ permission to get marrie….oh…wait a second…well, you don’t need their permission to get divorced if it doesn’t work ou….oh, wait a second…well, the government doesn’t define marriage, it…oh…
    So how hard is it to believe that government recognition, permission, and restriction of gay marriage is an issue tearing at the bounds of society?
    When California courts are called on to legalize marriage by people who can’t get that done via the vote, that is when we approach the boundaries the doomsayers said we would when the government issued licenses “for identification purposes.”
    Still, with the changing history of marriage as an institution, this is a conversation worht having, if for no other purpose than to learn where people stand in regard to what constitutes a family and a marriage…and whether a handful of people can force the majority to accept their views through the courts when they are rejected at the polls.

Be Sociable, Share!