Re: The New Retail Thread
The difference here is human rights. If Microsoft suddenly donated to anti-gay causes, I can guarantee you there would be insane protests and boycotts of their products.
Everyone keeps flipping this scenario to try to demonstrate their point, but there is only 1 correct side to this civil rights issue - all humans get equal rights. Companies that donate to causes that are against this common good should be put under intense scrutiny.
Data -- ones favoring or opposing the traditional / non-traditional definition of mariage has almost nothing to do with Civil Rights
Today -- Nothing stops any two individuals from living as if they were husband and wife -- a "Common Law Mariage" -- including siblings of whatever genders who later in life might share a home and do whatever. Indeed there are probably quite a few "very non-traditional relationships" occuring "under the radar-screen" within a one hour drive of where I'm sitting. BUT we don't call these official mariages for a reason.
The definiton of marigage was created by religious institutions long before there were any of the "publicly accessible benefits" confered by the modern civil mariage certificate.
For example, the foundation of the "so-called Western Society" is the moral code of behavior generally known as the "10 Commandments." or the "Decalogue" At the time of the documentation of the 10 Commandments in the "Old Testament" about 700 or so BCE -- the definition of a husband and a wife were explict. One of the Commandments condems adultery directly, and another one condems even the thought of it explicitly using the term "wife" -- aka a female married to a male.
This codification of morality was then adopted by the Christian Community, and subsequently embedded into the Roman Law of the post Constantine era. Christianity and Roman Law in turn provided the principles upon which English Common Law was founded. The most important aspect of mariage was the acknowledgement of official paternity, necessary for the stability of the family, and the inheritance of property in a feudal society.
Of course, subsequently we've introduced tradition breakers such as "no-fault divorce," the reduction of stigma for ilegitimacy, the acceptance of "shacking-up," and the loss of the salient role played by the tradional family-relationship in conceiving and bringing-up children.
So we've had mariage in the religious context for about 3000 years, while the concept of the citvil society granting something other than formal recognition to a "mariage" is much more recent -- involving inheritance, taxes, joint-tennancy, etc.
A simple solution to this dichotamy is to separate the two institutions. Let the religious mariage be as defined as it has been by the particular religion such as Chritianity -- between you and your spouse and your god. Then let the civil society define a civil union or "civilage," etc which confers to the union all of the legal benefits.
At the decision of the society by vote of the legislature or the people --the civilage could be extended to any combination which the society thought was appropriate. Meanwhile, the god-fearing Christians and others who wished to have a traditional religious margiage would obtain the relevant document from their pastor, etc. Ceremonies and festivities accompanying either or both the civil and religious bindings would of course be discretionary -- no one today can stop you from holding a "wedding" between your male beagle and cousin's femaile German Sheppard to produce German Sheagles
