BKM said:
...No, "traditional marriage" is an arranged business deal between two families or clans. The father of the bride basically transfers his daughter to her husband. The woman has no independent legal rights separate from the male members of the family...
I have to add some depth to your version of traditional here BKM. General rant to follow, I know I ruffle feathers on occasion. :-D
In pre Christian Germanic traditions, women were not anywhere near this subservient. Prior to the arrival of Christianity, women were full participants in the politics of the tribe, specifically in the Scandinavian traditions. Women were not shut out of political gatherings. They had a legal right to inherit property (still less than first born males, but they still legally were required to receive some inheritance). They had a right to own property (in fact, the woman’s wedding dowry was always considered the woman’s, if she divorced (notice I did not say “if the man divorced her”), she kept her dowry.
What I am getting at here, is that what is happening in VA is more linked to a specific religious dogma, which is anti-democratic. This is not just an affront to homosexuals, it’s an affront to democracy. Right now in VA, if your a catholic and do not support this legislation, a bishop near you may decide to prevent your communion with the divine being. Right now, the state of religion in the US is as anti democracy as anything in the Muslim world. EG made that comment a few days ago, but he forgot to point out that the operators of the Roman Catholic Church are just as anti-democratic, he did not point out that Evangelical religious sects in the US are just as anti democratic. This is not to say that I disagree with his analysis, just that he left out part of the equation that is a danger to our democracy. Few Christian sects actually promote, let alone believe that a woman can be as equally devout or capable of any kind of link with the divine being like men. This is ridiculous and I wonder why women put up with it. It is defiantly not a hallmark of democracy.
If you disagree and have read the article PG linked, it is not just the concept of marriage, its the concept of ANY kind of legal or contractual obligation based on your sexual orientation. If you can't create a legal contract because you are homosexual, to allow your partner access to your bedside in a hospital, the jump to not allowing you to have any kind of legal status in society not far behind.
