Evolution of Marriage

Back in the old days, marriage was basically a transfer of property; the female to be exact. It was used to unite kingdoms, transfer or amass wealth. It was between a man and a woman of his choosing or bargaining for, without the woman's consent. If the man could afford more than one wife he was free to do so, whether his current one(s) approved or not. It was between a male and female of any reproductive age, with the male usually being the elder. Marriage was forbidden between the races and faiths. It was always the duty of marriage to produce heirs, if not the man was free to disregard that wife and try with another, whether the fault lay with her or not.

Somewhere down the line things changed. Women developed more voice in who they would marry. Dowries were no longer required to ensure a marriage would take place. Women were no longer considered property of their fathers or their husbands. Couples of different faiths could marry. Couples of different races could marry. Producing children was no longer the sole reason behind a marriage. People understood that love was a better reason to marry, than for money or kingdom or peace.

The most important parts have been very recent events. The right for different races and faiths to marry. Not surprisingly, neither were based on popular votes. The government step in and did the right thing to ensure equality among its people. Yes, many were upset over it and some probably still disagree. Yet, things changes were seen as inevitable by an evolving civilization and necessary to the pursuit of happiness. No one would dare speak of undoing them. It would be unconscionable.

Here in the year 2008, we saw just that. A law that was to provide equality to the people in a state. To make sure that their family, however they choose to define it, was just as protected as everyone else. It was undone by popular vote. The religious leaders chose to make it a moral issue. They have the right to say it is wrong by their standards. No one says otherwise. The problem was they have now forced that belief into law, that has effected a percentage of the states population. Invalidating, a right, the court believed they had based on their interruption of the states law and Constitution. Which is what courts do, by the way. They had hijacked the legislative system to make law out of their belief.

They based this argument on text that is 2,000 years old. In the Old Testament, which according to their own beliefs are only historical at best, and was under the Law of God. They now prescribe to the New Testament, which eliminated all those animal sacrifices and such for sin, because after their Savior died, supposedly, they live under Grace. They based it on religious doctrines that not everyone subscribes to in this country. A step toward theocracy. The claim that marriage is a religious institution was used, forgoing the fact that in the very ceremonies they use, the religious official must state "By the power invested in me by the state of ___", in order for it to be recognized by the government, and convey all 1100 rights, laws, privileges and responsibilities to the new couple. And forgetting to mention that afterward or beforehand, the couple, the religious official, and whatever witnesses are required by the state, must sign a marriage license purchased from the government and resubmitted to make a legal binding contract of the religious ceremony.

I'm sure that was merely an oversight on their part. They didn't really mean to step on the rights of others. To follow their own doctrines of loving one another, tolerance and acceptance and forgiving of sins and not judging another, they could never go against what they preach and hold so dear. It was definitely an oversight. To now allow the things that were once condemn in their Old Testament, the marriage of different faiths and races certainly shows they are capable of embracing change. The simple fact that divorce and remarriage are now allowed is evidence of that. Even marriages that don't produce offspring are allowed to stand and are celebrated. The religious institutions that don't recognize those are in their rights to do so because of their freedom of religion, but most importantly those seeking such unions have other another way of establishing their marriage. Definitely a separation of church and state in that instance. I'm sure as soon as they come to understand these things and pray about them, they will do the right thing. They will ask our forgiveness and offer their support.

And if that is a long time coming, then we have history and case law in our favor. The most recent evolutions of marriage were dictated by the state and federal government. The popular vote doesn't really matter. Sure, it's nice if they understand and approve because it is the right thing to do to fulfill the tenants of their own religion. If not, we are still gonna fight for a basic right that was previously given in the name of equality and the pursuit of happiness.