If he wants to change my mind, he needs to avoid oversimplifying the issue in the first paragraph of his essay.

I beg your pardon, LMA, he does not rock. He completely
omits the original basis of marriage.

Marriage began first as a cultural (and later legal) framework
for the protection of the rights of children and childbearers.

It has somehow morphed into an expansion of rights for
people who only want to live together. The only requirement
today is that they be of opposite sex.

We have already read the plan of the Canadian progressives,
first to make any kind of union legal, and then to do
away with the entire thing as unnecessary. I'm not
making this up. (I'll find the link later, in the meantime,
google is your freind.)

So, the people fighting for gay marriage are the
(unwitting?) pawns of those who want to do away
the entire thing.

Why bother?

-Bob

p.s. i've been quite amused by the recent "gay divorce"
horror stories. be careful what you wish for ...

You can get enough here to find the rest yourself.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602030805.asp

-Bob

Come on, now, Bob: you're oversimplifying a bit. For many centuries women were regarded as the possessions of their husbands. I understand that you're pointing out marriage (theoretically) prevented the man from deserting the women he impregnated and all the issue therefrom, but to say it was ALL about protecting women and children is a bit much.

LMA,

I didn't say it was _ALL_ about protecting women and
children, I said it began as such.

It is as if Rauch is explaining the game of baseball and
starts at second base. You can't steal first base.

-Bob

I really don't have much problem with same-sex marriage except for one thing: Please keep your sex lives to yourselves and don't force your view of it on me and, especially, on my children. The homosexual "lifestyle" is not something that needs to be in our schools.

When, Bob? When was that magical moment at which marriage was only about protecting women and children? Because to me in the very beginning it appears that marriage was about men owning women as much as "protecting" them.

LMA,

It appears I've touched an emotional nerve. I can't reason against emotion.

It seems to me that owning other people is called slavery.
Since slavery was also in place at the advent of history,
why would it have been necessary to have two forms of
slavery?

Marriage has always -- from the very beginning --
established the property rights of heirs and survivors. Ownership, or slavery, has specifically
"dis-established" the rights of the owned parties.
Most concubines were slaves, they were not
generally referred to as wives. Their children were sold.

As far as being "magical" is concerned, i have difficulty
with that notion. Marriage out of affection is a fairly
recent development and primarily exists in westernized
cultures. Arranged marriages are hardly magical for
many of the participants. Since they were arranged
by parents with ulterior motives, the corruption of
the "magical moment" with ulterior motives was
probably immediate, if not sooner.

-Bob

So maybe women had some input in this marriage thing from its inception? Could it have been a "social contract"? I agree to do this in exchange for this, this, and this. . .Hmmm. What a novel idea! Putting the weight of law and the courts behind it just made it all work out as agreed upon.

I"d be more eager to vote for same-sex marriage if the feminists in the 60's hadn't suggested gay marriage as the first step to ridding society of all marriage. Since marriage is just a contract, what is wrong with creating individual contacts that convey all the same rights? Lawyers in major cities have been putting together standardized packages that do just that for years. And for as low as $200-300. Fine. If you must, go with civil unions where the packages are created by the State. I'll even let you call it "marryage" like in that movie "Pursuit of Happyness." But, that's it.