Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.

[MrFun]

Gay marriage is simply sodomy where the proper bond is not there in the first place. You cannot call something marriage, which has never been marriage.

Emotional bonds! = Marriage. They equal friendship. You cannot have a marriage based only on an emotional bond. One of the reasons you can acquire an annulment is if the marriage is unconsummated. Sex is an essential part of marriage. You can't get away from that.

Gay and lesbian couples who are in committed, monogamous relationships would love to be able to call their relationships marriage in the legal sense.

But unfortunately, bigots like you simply would not allow for this.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gay and lesbian couples who are in committed, monogamous relationships would love to be able to call their relationships marriage in the legal sense.

What's stopping you from calling yourselves married?

What you are demanding is that the government recognise your relationship as marriage, but that's not the role of government. I cannot demand that the government recognise a particular relationship of mine, unless I follow the rules that they set down.

What is the compelling need to change the rules?

[Ben Kenobi]

But divorce is a breaking of that bond, so why is it related to this essence - this bond - of marriage while committed gays and polygamists who've bonded are not?

I've said this many times already.

1. The bond is not the same. Sodomy does not bond in the same way that we see the bond in marriage. You cannot say they are 'bonded' in the same sense.

2. Polygamy, you must, at some point, break the original bond to form another. This is why it doesn't work.

Right, but you want adultery defined as marriage. Dont you see the contradiction?

Sigh.

Christ says that divorce is permissible in some cases, such as marital infidelity. This is where it would be possible for a woman to marry twice, yet both marriages are licit. The second marriage isn't adultery, because her previous husband severed the bond, (through no fault of her own).

You say gays and polygamists cant marry because their bond does not qualify as marriage based on your interpretation of Jesus, but adultery does qualify as marriage in your book when its clear Jesus called it adultery.

Jesus called it adultery if a woman divorces her husband except for marital infidelity.

All I am arguing is that there is a good case for three other exceptions, abandonment, abuse and failure to support, in addition to marital infidelity.

I don't believe in divorce as it is listed in the OT, where a husband didn't have to provide a reason to send his wife away, except that he is unhappy with her. This is what Christ is referring to as adultery, if you get divorced for these reasons, and then get remarried.

I'd appreciate it if you actually discussed the points in turn, rather then simply dismissing my point over, and over again.

You want to define marriage to include it's opposite - adultery - but deny marriage for those who are committed to it.

Fine, I'll ask you point blank. Do you believe that if a woman divorces her husband because of abuse, that it is adultery if she gets remarried?

But I wouldn't hurt or abandon a stranger either, or family member or friend.

You don't understand. One flesh. To hurt your wife is the same as hurting yourself.

This two into one is just symbolic language describing a certain kind of commitment.

No, that is not what I am saying. It's not symbolic. It is literal. The two become ONE FLESH in both body and spirit. This is why Paul says in Ephesians that a husband must love his wife as if she was his own flesh.

I actually agree the definition of marriage is between a man and woman (thats the status quo I grew up with) but its no skin off my back if the definition of marriage is expanded to ostensibly include life partners or whatever gays call themselves.

Then why can't I marry my brother, or my grandmother? I have a commitment to both of them. By your language, if marriage is merely 'a commitment' no greater or less then any other, then you would have to say that I should be able to 'marry' my brother.

This is why the one-flesh relationship is different from the other commitments that you make and why the physical bond of a man and a woman in marriage is so important. That you see it as symbolic, is wrong. It is literal.

No, but they aint infidelity and Jesus said infidelity was the only grounds for divorce.

Thank you, that's my only point. You and I agree that there are other circumstances (which are described elsewhere in the bible), as justification for divorce. Jesus's list in this one Gospel isn't an exhaustive one.

Now, here's why the context matters - would Jesus object to a woman divorcing an abusive husband? Or an abandoned woman? I cant see it happening.

That's really my point. You are insisting that when Jesus says, except for marital infidelity, that the list is exhaustive.

But women couldn't divorce men in his time, divorce was a one way street.

You've touched on a very, very important point. I was hoping you would bring this up. Jesus not only affirms that the two become one, but that the woman is as an equal in marriage to the man. They are not 2 men and one woman or one man and two women, but one man and one woman together.

Thats why I cant accept your argument that Jesus was defining who could marry whom, the context is limited to a certain group of people - jerks who dump their older wives for younger women or whatever reason.

He's specifically setting an ideal of marriage, husband and wife, united as one, as Adam and Eve.

Thats a commitment, the bond of marriage doesn't exist without it.

I agree. Marriage is not just a commitment though.

But you want the law to allow the adulterous relationships to be defined as marriages.

No, I believe that if a woman leaves her abusive husband that it is not adultery.

Thats right, adultery is not commitment and polygamy and gay marriage are...Until someone cheats

You've got it backwards. They all are commitment, which is why Mr. Fun makes very, very sure to always talk about the 'committed' gay relationships (as opposed to the uncommitted ones, one would presume). I have many committed relationships of friends and family. But they are not marriage, not by a long shot. Obviously, a commitment is important, but the question you have to ask is a commitment to what?

Yer not taking up with someone else, polygamists have large extended families that all live together in much the same way some of the patriarchs did.

You are saying that they conduct two marriages at the same time? I would think that would be rare. I think most of the time it's like you said, the man gets married once, and wants to get married again. I think that's very wrong, and I know you agree with me. No one should be 'unloaded' on anyone else. It's bad for the husband and the wife.

Thats true for adultery but you call it marriage nonetheless And "sodomy" (read the story, even a loose sexual interpretation shows attempted rape was the crime

Lot offered his daughters and they refused. They wanted to have sex with the cool male angel visitors. That is why it's called sodomy.

I suggest reading up on the legends of the Jews and Bedouin if you think homosexuality was the offense) is a word for certain sexual acts, not the emotional bonds people have for each other.

Which is a very modern, and incorrect interpretation.

Thats like saying marriage between a man and a woman is not marriage because whatever sexual acts they do in bed is not marriage. Is the missionary position marriage? Is a BJ marriage? Is doggie style marriage? That doesn't make sense, marriage is a commitment, not a sexual act.

And right there is where you go wrong. Marriage is about the sexual union of a man and a woman together. There is a different between the acts and between the bond, but you cannot get the bond without sex.

Why not? Older people still get married even though all they have left in the tank is an emotional bond.

I can't wait until you get to be that age.

Obviously friends have emotional bonds but people getting married are claiming a different bond. It aint adultery to make new friends, it is to cheat on yer spouse.

Exactly! And that's why there's more to marriage then simply the commitment.

No it isn't (old people dont need to have sex to get married),

Have you spoke to them?

and Jesus never said anything about consummation (or did he, hell I dont know).

He does, "the two become one flesh" in the literal sense is consummation. That is what I've been trying to hammer home for a long time now. I can see that and I've not been with anybody! It's like, hello! I'm talking about sex people!

That reminds me, if Adam and Eve were married, when did they consummate their marriage? According to Adam, Eve came from his flesh and they were one but they didn't have sex yet - that was their disobedience to God, they had sex, they consummated their marriage.

Right at the end of Genesis 2. Gen 2:21-25

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

The exact passage which Christ quotes in Matthew 19!

Its illogical to say God blessed their marriage, he didn't even know about it until Eve was pregnant and he blew a fuse and kicked em out.

Nope, he blesses them in Genesis 1, Gen 1:26-8

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

So who was responsible for Adam and Eve consummating their marriage? The Serpent... And Jesus appears to have been a fan of the Serpent, he even told his disciples to be wise like the serpent.

The serpent doesn't appear until Genesis 3. I'm not sure where you are getting this from, but you need to read Genesis, at least the first 5 chapters again.

Elohim told the first people to be fruitful and multiply (nothing about marriage), Adam and Eve were a special creation for the Garden. They were not present when God was telling the first people what to do, and God did not let these first peoples into his Garden.

Ok, so you are saying that Adam and Eve were not the first men and women on the Earth? I've never heard that interpretation ever. God blessed the man and the woman (singular), in which he created. These were Adam and Eve, although they are not named until Genesis 2.

When Adam and Eve became fruitful and threatened to fill the Garden they got booted out.

Only when they disobeyed, God's word not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Jesus didn't say polygamy was allowed because men had hard hearts. And why do you need to break one bond to have another?

It's a one flesh relationship. You cannot add another person to the relationship because it is exclusive!

We have bonds with two parents, often multiple siblings, and many friends.

Again, which reinforces my point that marriage is different. It's the exclusive union of one man and one woman in marriage.

I'd say several thousand years of history shows polygamy does work, it was often necessary, especially for a hill tribe constantly being over run by neighboring tribes. Adam and Eve were 2 people, not 3 or 4. Jesus was relating their situation, he was using the teachings of his audience to criticize Mosaic divorce law (I thought Jesus agreed with every jot and tittle of the OT )

It was never necessary. It was always seen as a temptation. The OT is rife with examples of difficult polygamous marriages, Leah and Rebecca being perhaps the best known.

He was dealing with a man and a woman situation, he was not saying only a man and a woman can have the bond of marriage.

That is exactly what he was saying, when he says that the two become one flesh.

Why? With monogamy you cant remarry and keep boinking the ex but polygamists dont share that mentality. It aint adultery to them because they've made a marriage commitment that includes multiple spouses.

That is because they do not understand marriage. It works both ways. The wife is bonded to her husband only and the husband to his wife only. It's like a plug in with male and female ends. Sure you can stick it in anywhere, but the bond only exists when you have the one male and one female.

Well of course not, polygamy means multiple marriages and sodomy means a BJ or some other sex act.

No, that's not what sodomy means.

You keep claiming gay marriage is sodomy but gays dont have to marry to commit sodomy nor do you have to be gay, its a sexual act(s) and does not describe the emotional bonds or commitments between people.

So what elevates a commitment to marriage, and the sexual act to marriage, Berz? You are right that the two by themselves are not marriage. Is it the two together, or consummation?

So polygamists are obliged to obey your interpretation of Jesus' teachings but not adulterers? Polygamy is and was widespread in the old world long before the rise of the west.

Why is a woman who leaves an abusive husband an adulterer?

Who gets to decide what your marriage vows are? Some people have open marriages where they get to play around but remain committed in other ways, like raising the kids.

Which is again, not marriage. You are free to call your relationship whatever you want, but it's not marriage.

Polygamists consensually enter into that arrangement knowing the marriage contract does not exclude other spouses.

Great. Still doesn't make it marriage.

And you deny this natural law when you deny people their commitments

Not all commitments are marriage.

[Agathon]

This two into one is just symbolic language describing a certain kind of commitment.

No. It absolutely is not that. It's the Christian version of a long standing belief that the world is divided, naturally, into male and female principles. Ancient people do not think like we do.

I guess the only place that moderns would come across this very old idea is The Da Vinci Code. If you've read that silly book, you'll know that one consequence of this belief is that the reuniting of these principles in acts of copulation is understood a holy act. For example, Herodotus reports the ceremonial copulation of the King of Babylon and the Priestess of Ishtar, and there are various reports of sacred prostitution in the ancient world. There's a lot of sexual mysticism in all religions, and almost all of them take the view that the union of male and female principles expresses something fundamental about the structure of the universe.

You can see the same thing in ancient pantheons, where each god had a "wife" (i.e. a complimentary female principle). It's also no surprise that disorder and lawlessness is explained by gods screwing around.

The idea is that we all participate in this ourselves via marriage and the bearing of children. If you marry a woman with the intent of reproduction, and you screw her. She becomes one flesh with you. If you engage in adultery, your copulation with the other woman breaks that bond, because otherwise it would imply that the woman whom you committed adultery with had become one with you and the wife you cheated on. But this implies a female-female pairing, which is impossible, since what was demanded was a union of opposites. Homosexual couplings are essentially like trying to mix oil and water.

It has absolutely nothing to do with prejudice against homosexuals, and everything to do with a certain view of the structure of the world and the place and purpose of male and female in it.

[Straybow]

The problem is you are interpreting "one flesh" from a modern idea of equality between the sexes. Ain't so, historically speaking. Women were chattel except in a handful or two of cultures. Both polygamy and concubinage were widespread; the latter was dissoluble where the former was not, and offspring of the latter were not entitled to inheritance.

"One flesh" in historical context was not the exclusive binding of the man to the woman, but it was exclusive of the woman to the man. It did not equate to consubstantiality and its resulting philosophical paradoxes.

[Agathon]

The problem is you are interpreting "one flesh" from a modern idea of equality between the sexes. Ain't so, historically speaking. Women were chattel except in a handful or two of cultures. Both polygamy and concubinage were widespread; the latter was dissoluble where the former was not, and offspring of the latter were not entitled to inheritance.

The passage in question is critical of such traditions. That's one of its main points. It attributes them to hard heartedness.

"One flesh" in historical context was not the exclusive binding of the man to the woman, but it was exclusive of the woman to the man. It did not equate to consubstantiality and its resulting philosophical paradoxes.

Oh, so that's why it doesn't use "wife" in the plural, except when he's referring to the corresponding wives of many individual men. Consubstantiality is exactly what is being referred to here. It doesn't say that the woman becomes the man's flesh, but that a new unity is created from a previous plurality. The most apposite translation would be "fusion".

The passage doesn't say anything about equality. But equality is irrelevant to the claim I made.

[Agathon]

No, the word in Gk means "yoked together." Yoking is by no means inherently permanent. The idea of "consubstantiality" is a later neo-platonist reading by the Greco-Roman church.

No it doesn't. The verb I talked about, "kollao", means "glue" or "cement". It also can mean "weld", "fuse" or even "cleave" (which is a word that often gets used in Ancient Greek to express love relationships, often by Plato - the philosophers cleave to the Forms, for example). You are looking at "suzeugnumi", which can mean "yoke together", but is a common word for "marry". "Suzeugnumi" occurs later in the passage.

"Kollao" has to bear the fusing or welding sense here, or it makes no sense to say that the two are one flesh. "Suzeugnumi" is used after "kollao" in this passage and anaphorically refers to it. He's not saying that they are numerically identical, but that their flesh is a unity in the way that it is not a unity with the flesh of others. Just quite what that means is a metaphysical conundrum (just what consubstantial means is up for debate. You don't have to be a Platonist to believe in it), but so is a lot of what is written in the Bible. But what it is not, is merely a social practice, because it is the fact that they were naturally created male and female that is given as the reason for the possibility of them becoming one flesh. It isn't something that anyone, not even God says, but is internal to their natures. If it is just a cute and metaphorical way of talking about marriage, then why make the reference to the creation of male and female as the natural cause of this?

To attempt to create a unity out of a man and two women would, as I said above, violate the restriction in 4-5, because it is metaphysically impossible to do so.

Moreover, the translation "the two will be one flesh" is misleading, because what the first instance of that statement says is literally "they will be, the two, into [ἐις] one flesh". "Eis" can't be bearing the locative sense here, as in "the man goes into the woman" or "the woman is transformed into part of the man's body". It likely bears the sense that "into" can bear in English "we make the two [things] into one [thing]". Here, the identity is explicitly identity of flesh.

Then we have the result clause. "so that they are no longer (ouketi) two, but one flesh". All of this occurs before the verb "suzeugnumi". Hence, the content of the latter is likely determined by the foregoing discussion. i.e. "God puts these people together, in the way I just said".

It certainly does not mean that the fusion is permanent, nor is that necessarily implied.

[MrFun]

What is the compelling need to change the rules?

That marriage is a civil right; THAT is the compelling reason to grant gays and lesbians equal civil rights and privilege protection; cause under the 14th Amendment, gays and lesbians who are born or naturalized in United States are citizens.

No one has really responded here yet about the 14th Amendment and its possible connection with the Supreme Court's ruling on the case of Loving and interracial marriage. So let me reiterate.

The 14th Amendment states that all natural born citizens are entitled to equal protection of rights and privileges. Thus, it is prohibiting discrimination against people of other races in this regard. But this can also be expanded to include straight women, gay men, and lesbians for all those who are American citizens.

If, as some people here have claimed, that the Supreme Court ruling on declaring prohibition of interracial marriage did NOT make marriage a civil right, then there was no point to the Supreme Court's ruling; it's rather meaningless.

What was the point of the Supreme Court's ruling if marriage was not declared to be a civil right? Because if marriage is not a civil right, there was no violation of the 14th Amendment by prohibiting interracial marriage.

[Dr Strangelove]

The bright side of the coin is that Ken Starr hasn't been successful very often. He went after Clinton 3 times and failed.

[Solomwi]

That marriage is a civil right; THAT is the compelling reason to grant gays and lesbians equal civil rights and privilege protection; cause under the 14th Amendment, gays and lesbians who are born or naturalized in United States are citizens.

No one has really responded here yet about the 14th Amendment and its possible connection with the Supreme Court's ruling on the case of Loving and interracial marriage. So let me reiterate.

The 14th Amendment states that all natural born citizens are entitled to equal protection of rights and privileges. Thus, it is prohibiting discrimination against people of other races in this regard. But this can also be expanded to include straight women, gay men, and lesbians for all those who are American citizens.

If, as some people here have claimed, that the Supreme Court ruling on declaring prohibition of interracial marriage did NOT make marriage a civil right, then there was no point to the Supreme Court's ruling; it's rather meaningless.

What was the point of the Supreme Court's ruling if marriage was not declared to be a civil right? Because if marriage is not a civil right, there was no violation of the 14th Amendment by prohibiting interracial marriage.

Again, your last sentence is simply false. Equal protection is a civil right, regardless of whether the underlying act is a civil right. A Florida law prohibiting whites, and only whites, from gambling on jai alai violates the Equal Protection clause even though gambling on jai alai is clearly not a civil right.

That said, marriage is a fundamental civil right, but Loving did not make it one. Loving said that the only purpose behind anti-miscegenation laws was racial discrimination, and such laws therefore could not stand. Your line of thought remains vulnerable to the "definition of marriage" attack. If homosexual unions are seen as something other than marriages, marriage being a civil right offers no protection to homosexual unions. Right now, that's a significant obstacle, whether you or I think it should be or not.

[Ben Kenobi]

That marriage is a civil right; THAT is the compelling reason to grant gays and lesbians equal civil rights and privilege protection; cause under the 14th Amendment, gays and lesbians who are born or naturalized in United States are citizens.

By your argument, you would assume that those who remain unmarried are deprived of something essential, which is hardly the case. Marriage is not a civil right, in the sense of speech and religion. I have no right to demand I be married.

The 14th Amendment states that all natural born citizens are entitled to equal protection of rights and privileges.

I presume you mean the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Do you see marriage anywhere? I don't. You are assuming that 'depriving life, liberty or property constitutes marriage, but that certainly wasn't the case in 1865.

Thus, it is prohibiting discrimination against people of other races in this regard. But this can also be expanded to include straight women, gay men, and lesbians for all those who are American citizens.

Where does it say that? Homosexuality is not the same as race. You are assuming this is true, when there is no legal grounds for your case.

If, as some people here have claimed, that the Supreme Court ruling on declaring prohibition of interracial marriage did NOT make marriage a civil right, then there was no point to the Supreme Court's ruling; it's rather meaningless.

It's the lynchpin of your case. If Loving does not say that "marriage is a civil right", then you cannot appeal to the 14th amendment.

What was the point of the Supreme Court's ruling if marriage was not declared to be a civil right?

To permit interracial marriage. Duh. Why would people care about gay marriage? I mean really. I think this is hilarious. "Unless Loving benefits us, it had no purpose whatsoever". And you call yourself a historian? I'm disgusted.

Tell me your name, so I can tell others not to buy your books when you publish.

[Ben Kenobi]

The historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2).

But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude

Exactly so.

Open and shut. Loving has nothing to do to help your case, unless you are arguing that gay marriage bans promote white supremacy or something other then that.

[MrFun]

By your argument, you would assume that those who remain unmarried are deprived of something essential, which is hardly the case. Marriage is not a civil right, in the sense of speech and religion. I have no right to demand I be married.

Where does it say that? Homosexuality is not the same as race. You are assuming this is true, when there is no legal grounds for your case.

To permit interracial marriage. Duh. Why would people care about gay marriage?

You're an idiot. Having a civil right does not legally enable you to practice your civil right if the result is to violate another person's freedom or civil right. We all have the freedom to choose the people we want to associate with, or with whom we want to develop relationships with as long as those other people share the same interest in you. The civil right to marry does not mean that you can compel someone else to marry you. It means that two mutually interested people have the freedom to enter into a legally-recognized and protected marriage.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not say anything about homosexuality. Yet, the PRINCIPLE of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to people who are born or naturalized in United States - citizens. Gays and lesbians who are born or naturalized in United States are citizens.

Another stupid remark in your post is that you say it was simply to permit interracial marriage without having anything to do with civil rights. This is just sheer stupidity. WHAT the hell was the compelling reason to permit interracial marriage then if it had nothing to do with civil rights??

[MrFun]

Again, your last sentence is simply false. Equal protection is a civil right, regardless of whether the underlying act is a civil right. A Florida law prohibiting whites, and only whites, from gambling on jai alai violates the Equal Protection clause even though gambling on jai alai is clearly not a civil right.

That said, marriage is a fundamental civil right, but Loving did not make it one. Loving said that the only purpose behind anti-miscegenation laws was racial discrimination, and such laws therefore could not stand. Your line of thought remains vulnerable to the "definition of marriage" attack. If homosexual unions are seen as something other than marriages, marriage being a civil right offers no protection to homosexual unions. Right now, that's a significant obstacle, whether you or I think it should be or not.

Okay. So then either gays and lesbians are entitled to equal marriage protection under the equal protection clause, even if marriage is not a civil right OR gays and lesbians are entitled to equal marriage protection because it indeed is a civil right.

I don't think the "definition of marriage" line of attack can hold between one of those two choices because it's simply denying calling something for what it is, even though married gay and lesbian couples often refer to their unions as marriages.

[Solomwi]

Okay. So then either gays and lesbians are entitled to equal marriage protection under the equal protection clause, even if marriage is not a civil right OR gays and lesbians are entitled to equal marriage protection because it indeed is a civil right.

I don't think the "definition of marriage" line of attack can hold between one of those two choices because it's simply denying calling something for what it is, even though married gay and lesbian couples often refer to their unions as marriages.

You still seem to be just assuming that the word marriage encompasses same-sex unions. The problem is that if that's not the case, then gays and lesbians are already enjoying equal protection under the law regarding marriage. A gay man can marry any of the same women a straight man can. Your preference doesn't necessarily matter to the question of whether you enjoy equal protection. That was not the case with a statute that specified that non-whites could not marry whites, particularly given the history of race in America that gave rise to the statute.

I know you disagree with the notion that marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman, and think it's a denial of reality, but MrFun's opinion of whether same-sex unions are actually marriages doesn't matter. Neither does Solomwi's. It matters just as little what people call their relationships. A bunch of middle school couples can decide they want to call their relationships marriages, but it doesn't make it so.