Unfortunately Joe had to parse his words. He couldn’t say ‘Yes I support gay marriage.’ Because that’ll turn the rabid right on and they’ll start frothing. Keep in mind in a numbers game; they make up about 33% of the population; we make up 10-20%. If we duke it out, they’ll beat us. What I got out of that little phrase was, you’ll get all the rights, but we can’t call it marriage. It’s like being named regent in a monarchy; you’re not king/queen, but you get to act like it.

Some history about changes in “marriage”:

In the United States, as recognized by all states, marriage is nothing more than a secular legal contract, and it did not come into existence until the 1920’s, and took a decade before all states adopted the plan. This contract is regulated somewhat differently by each state, BUT, it does institutionalize over 1000 rights/features/items for those who enter into the contract. This was done so that the contract marriage could cross state lines without too much of a difference and make litigating it, and dissolution/divorce more palatable. As some of you may know, the divorce decree is different for each couple, and must be negotiated through the lawyers before it goes to the judge, who sanctifies the agreement according to law. This shows that there is a difference in how the marriage progressed and how the assets were acquired. And the basic state-sanctioned contract can be modified by a pre-nuptial agreement, and it prevails over the standard marriage laws.

Further, look at all the marriages of the powerful monarchs from the 1200’s up to and including the early 1900’s. These were done for legal and powerful alliances to get or give resources so kings and queens (and people in general) could gain control over land and people. Even Queen Victoria (1840) and Czarina Alexandra (1894) were married for political gain.

The point:
Marriage has changed dramatically over the years. Women were initially the property of men, first of their fathers, and then they were “sold” into marriage, mostly for the purpose of building a contractual bond to keep the land and riches “in the family”. (Read the Christian Old Testament for more info.)

I am going to assume that a dowry was given because the “girls” were not always beautiful enough to get a husband on their “charms”. And usually, they were married off in age order. Land was only inherited by the sons, or if no son, by the husbands of the female children.
(And NO, I do not agree with that philosophy, but that was the custom back then.) Moreover, they needed the women to create “help” to farm the land and care for livestock; yes, it was child labor to the extreme!

And the religious groups believed that interracial marriage was “against the will of God”, because He bred them all on different continents. All states of the U.S. had anti-interracial laws on the books until 1948. This of course was changed in the United States, beginning in California in 1948, when the anti-interracial marriage laws were struck down by the California Supreme Court. It took nearly a decade before all states had to recognize interracial marriages and have their laws struck down.

The final point:
The right wing cannot rightfully say that marriage has not changed throughout history (for 5000 years). That is a stupid and insulting remark to those who have any idea about history.

Conclusion:

Now is the time for us to “call on the carpet” those who wrongly say same-sex marriage is not acceptable, and that marriage has not changed over time. Why? Because it is nothing more than a legal contract, and to deny one group of people access to a legal contract is simply and plainly discriminatory, and definitely illegal.

If one wants a marriage blessed, one goes to a church or a religious cleric. And if that cleric does not wish to bless a marriage, that person is not legally bound to perform a ceremony. That would never change. For example, a Catholic priest will not bless a marriage union unless the two being married agree to raise the children of the marriage as Catholics. (I suppose it may be up to the individual priest, but this is how I understand the ceremony will be made according to church doctrine.) I personally know several people who have been denied a ceremony by selected protestant religious preachers.

So, we must continue to push the envelope and ask for same-sex marriage, civil unions or what ever term you swish to call it. It you want it to be blessed by a religious order, then so do it, and call it a marriage. But in any case, we NEED THE LEGAL PROTECTIONS NOW, more than we need the term “marriage”. We can always fight to change the definition later, perticularly if it shown to be “separate but unequal.”