I’m afraid this shows a very narrow viewpoint of “people groups.” I have a strong background in gender studies, and have looked into marriage and sexual relationships within lesser-known cultures. The fact is that different cultures treat marriage and relationships very differently. Yes, most of the “developed” world has adopted a view of marriage similar to what we are used to in America, but there are many cultures which have not. For example, did you know that some Native American cultures had sex changes? Although they did not have the medical capacity to do it physically, if a woman wanted to become a man, she would hang bear testicles around her waist, and then the whole tribe would treat “him” as any other man. He would even be allowed to to take a wife, and would usually take a widow as a wife, so that he would have children to raise.

There are cultures (I believe in both South America and Africa) where the “father” of children plays a very small role in their lives. He procreates with the woman, but then leaves her alone from then on. The brother of the woman then acts as a “husband,” providing for her and her children and raising the children with her. The biological father has his own nieces and nephews to take care of, usually – so as you can see, a very different view of marriage than what we usually see.

The point here is that if any of the people I discussed moved to America (or in the case of the Native Americans, “lived in modern America,”) they would not be free to practice marriage in the way that their cultures dictate. They would not have the legal protections (over 1200 on the state and federal levels) that I would have if I married a man who is not my relative.

Joel said: “The problem with what you have talked about is that you have turned the difference of the sexes into nothing more than external genitilia. Like much of society, you are arguing that men and women aren’t inherently different from one another and complementary.”

My research into sex and gender studies tells me that this is, in fact, true. There is more statistical difference between people within a sex than between the two sexes.

If anyone is interested in book recommendations for the subjects I have brought up here, I can provide them.

Not arguing for the merger of church and state, but here’s where people use the “church and state” argument incorrectly. Marriage isn’t a religious thing; it’s in place to ensure the continuity of the society. It just happens that those who instituted the act of marriage governed using religious ideals.

Honestly, I don’t think you can separate church and state when it comes to marriage because by letting whoever marry whatever they want, but requiring the government to formally recognize it for use in legal disputes, etc., then you’re automatically bringing state into the church. The state would need to keep records on the marriage beliefs of hundreds or eventually thousands of different groups of people, and those groups would change their “laws” to suit them as they wish.

For example, do we recognize the Muslim (or some Muslims) practice of divorcing your wife just by saying it three times? How is that not subjugating women through marriage? Women don’t get that same right.

So like I said, you can’t separate church and state with marriage, and you can’t just let anyone decide what they want to do, especially when there are other factors at stake like property disputes, child custody, death benefits, etc. The laws are in place for stability, not control and subjugation.

Once government and its subsidies for marriage are withdrawn or made available to single people, then churches, organizations and individuals can deal with couples coming together, living together, raising families and doing what people have done forever. Couples are free to determine their relationships and characterize it with any words they choose.

In this way, there is no Prop 8, no marriage laws; no “Healthy Marriage Initiative”; no government marriage licenses; no civil unions; no exclusive Federal subsidies or financial incentives to married people.

The conservatives should welcome the reduction of government and getting government out of our intimate personal lives; the Christian Right should welcome that the church now has authority over the marriage of its members and not the government; the 100 million single people should applaud at no longer having to pay for benefits exclusively going to married people; gays will have finally have achieved true equality; the liberals and progressives should welcome the justice of the situation; and libertarians will rejoice at a small move in the direction of “live and let live.” Everyone should be satisfied except those who relish the fight itself.

Jerry
http://www.leads4insurance.com