Nor does modern marriage bind a woman to a man but is rather a union between the State and a woman. The man is definitively the subservient party, a guest in his own home at his wife’s discretion.

And while I oppose governmental or even religious marriage, I’d question the wisdom of subjecting the tastes of the majority to that of the extreme minority.

If anything there is far more historical and biological support for polygamy….the reproduction of successful males at the expense of noncompetitive males (the normal state in nature) than for barren “playing house” by homosexuals.

Thanks very much for your comment. It was probably a bad idea for me to even mention the notion of what it originallly was, because there is really no true beginning to the origins of something. Insofar as my argument is concerned, the point isn’t really how it started, anyway, but what it has become. I think it’s certainly fair to say the concept of marriage we have inherited is firmly entrenched as a religious institution, for better or worse.

What you brought up is really interesting, though. If the prevailing definition of “marriage” changed once, obviously it can change again. I suppose the lesson of history here is that it will take a great hegemonic power to do so. We just don’t have that in a democracy, and society is otherwise too heterogeneous for the prevailing definition of anything to be coherently changed. Thus, if the word “marriage” is used, I fear the issue will never be settled. (Unless some central cultural power equivalent to the 16th century Roman Catholic Church comes about, and I think I speak for all sides when I say nobody wants that.)

Now, perhaps you can help us figure out how to make this change happen? That’s a tough one!

One point I do want to make though, and your article inspired me to do some research on the subject, is the origin of marriage. I found an excellent article in “The Week” magazine from 2004, and I had to subscribe to get to it, but it was worth it. (If you happen to have a subscription, the title is “The Origins of Marriage”, at http://www.theweek.com/article/index/6292/3/The_origins_of_marriage)

Bottom line, it states that marriage was not originally a religious entity, but a legal one:

“Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property.”

“As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.”

There are a few sites that have reprinted the piece in full, I’m sure a quick Google search will find them, but I wanted to share a bit of it with you.

Thank you for your support and well-reasoned thoughts.