Defining Marriage. A Legal Right or a Religious Privilege?

A brief explanation by the author as to why this article is still published:

Since the supreme court ruling that same sex marriages would now be legal in all states, the first impulse was to delete this hub as irrelevant at this time. But, after much contemplation it was decided that it would be left intact as a reminder of the ugliness of the recent past and be testimony to how religious stupidity and unfounded hatred could permanently destroy the lives of innocent people.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Love and marriage. What is the great controversy? It is only a legally binding contract between two people. Give it a rest.

This quick hub is in response to two question asked today by Anne Pettit.

The questions were:

• 1.. "If a person is "pro-life", why isn't the life of the mother worthy of protection and consideration?"

• 2. "How can a person be "pro family" and opposed to "same sex" marriage at the same time?"

Both good compelling questions that are no so difficult to understand, or answer.

First let's look at the word 'marriage", how it originated, and how it was twisted into something that was never intended. Much like everything else these days that actually makes sense to the discerning and half way intelligent among us.

Marriage defined:

• a. the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.
• b. the act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected.
• c. an intimate or close union.

But there is another dictionary interpretation of the institution of marriage. It is called "A Marriage of Convenience". Defined as: a marriage contracted for social, political, or economical advantage rather than for mutual affection.

Defining Marriage by today's standards. Is it a right or a privilege? Or merely a rite binding a contract between two people? {these are rhetorical questions only}

Who is defining marriage anyway? The Law? Religion? The constitution?

The original intent was to legally bind two people (man & woman) who intended to raise a family so that the moral responsibility was legally placed on both parties.

In other words if one walked away from the union they would still bear some legal responsibility for the rearing of their children. Ergo, the legal terms of alimony and/or palimony were borne. These had nothing to do with religion or morality. They were strictly to legally bind two people together.

Then when the Roman government created the Roman Catholic Church and the concept of Christianity to exhort control over the people, they added the religious ceremony as a "blessing" bestowed by their created religion as a "courtesy" to their brethren, not as a legal entity. Thereby the institution of marriage became the illustrious ceremonial event as we see it today steeped in deep tradition and deep pockets.

The present day views on marriage are put askew by the organized religious cults to try to take possession of this legal ceremony for their own personal agenda.

People can still get married for the sake of convenience, and by a justice of the peace, or any other person identified to be able to perform this "legally" binding ceremony between two individuals.

In their zealousness to control people, the cults then threw in the concept of "family" to try and convince the uneducated public into thinking that this was some kind of a "holy" event or somehow a "creation" of God.

? Who married Adam and Eve? They were the first couple to represent the concept of "common law marriage". Dictionary definition:

• a. a marriage recognized in some jurisdictions and based on the parties' agreement to consider themselves married and sometimes also on their cohabitation.
• b. the cohabitation of a couple even when it does not constitute a legal marriage.

This was all based on "common law" which is the body of law developed in England primarily from judicial decisions based on custom and precedent, unwritten in statute or code, and constituting the basis of the English legal system and of the system in all of the United States (except in Louisiana whose ignorance is currently being followed by other ignorant states).

When trying to redefine the concept of family, the conservative moralists again twisted something good into something evil in order to lay claim to that conception as well.

A "family" is merely a group of people who come together, either by cohabitation, by groups, by community or any other similarity that binds them together as a unit.

There is way too much emphasis on the religious infringements on people in our society today, not only in the U.S., but as a global society.

This inane attempt to mandate morality by a few people who deem themselves spokes persons for our Creator have over stepped their bounds and are only the creators of disorder and chaos in a society that can take care of itself in peaceful and harmonies ways without their interference.

Religious interference in our lives can be viewed as abusive and bordering on (if not truly) crimes against humanity itself.

For there is NO man, religion, or cult, on this earth that has the right to act as, or in the name of, our Creator to pass any moral judgements on others for any reason. Those that do so and state it to be sanctioned by God are committing one of the greatest sins of all against humanity: That of righteous indignation and disrespect for basic human rights.

We must learn to respect one another and allow individuality of choice in our pursuits of happiness, love, partnerships and every other personal aspect of our lives, without interference, or making moral judgments on others. No man (or woman) has been given that right by anyone else.

We must stand united against this religious repression and tell them it is time to stop interfering in our lives.

If this interference continues on the scale it is at today, these cults will be the losers in the end, as they are driving people away from them faster than they are attracting new converts; though this loss by religions is a major gain for humanity.

Morally decent people do not act in the way religious zealots are portraying themselves in our society today.

These judgmental-ists are nothing more than zealots, bullies, tyrants and rogues. This is the last thing a wavering economy needs as a distraction from recovery.

We are all born equal, with equal rights, and morality judgements should stay within the cults in which they were born, and hopefully die there.

by d.william 02/14/2012