tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120102706746000480.post3138830876570154122..comments2023-05-12T03:38:41.343-07:00Comments on Mr. Quarter's Corner: Mr. Quarter Opines on Historical Nature of MarriageMr. Quarterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05530232886176570511noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120102706746000480.post-70323336125873859772011-02-19T09:29:00.856-08:002011-02-19T09:29:00.856-08:00I agree with your historic accuracy as such. I add...I agree with your historic accuracy as such. I add this. " Historically" Marriage at different times has meant the POSSIBILITY of more than one wife. It has also meant the possibility of marrying someone very young...a child even. We have defined for at least 200 years ( In the United States) that A marriage is only one man and one woman. It is only with a person of a certain minimum age. Laws and courts do things a certain way. If we accept a court challenge saying gay marriage MUST be legal because of " Due Process and Equal Protection" then FOR SURE, those who are NOW living in " partnerships" of multiple numbers will demand their day in court !! Marriages with minors will also be challenged/considered. This all MAY happen anyway. Civil Unions are at least a stop-gap measure! ( IN fact....the easiest measure would be for States to ONLY license Civil Unions for everyone....the " contract part" and then let Churches perform whatever " Marriages they feel comfortable with. This keeps the states in business with keeping track of the " contracts" yet gets the states out of the whole mess of what a marriage should be!!Something Im not sure the States should have been a part of in any case! ) At the end of the day....I am ok with gay civil unions. However a marriage is something else. A marriage in the US is based on the christian model...and for me that does NOT allow for a " Gay Marriage". As long as the States continue to license " Marriage" then civil unions is the correct option for Gays! <br /><br />WaltAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com