In looking up the legal definition of marriage, here's what I found:
MARRIAGE - A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.
To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, able to contract, and have actually contracted.
They must be willing to contract. Those persons, therefore, who have no legal capacity in point of intellect, to make a contract, cannot legally marry, as idiots, lunatics, and infants; males under the age of fourteen, and females under the age of twelve; and when minors over those ages marry, they must have the consent of their parents or guardians. There is no will when the person is mistaken in the party whom he intended to marry; as, if Peter intending to marry Maria, through error or mistake of person, in fact marries Eliza; but an error in the fortune, as if a man marries a woman whom he believes to be rich, and he finds her to be poor; or in the quality, as if he marries a woman whom he took to be chaste, and whom he finds of an opposite character, this does not invalidate the marriage, because in these cases the error is only of some quality or accident, and not in the person.
When the marriage is obtained by force or fraud, it is clear that there is no consent; it is, therefore, void, and may be treated as null by every court in which its validity may incidentally be called in question.
This is just the beginning of the definition (found in the Lectric Law Library) of marriage.
I would like to point out a few sections of this definition that I find to be obviously insulting to the gay community. First of all, gay men and women are free by definition, able to reciprocally live together, and are definitely willing to contract, yet they apparently do not posses the union that "ought" to exist between a man and a woman. But how about ALL the couples that divorce within a month, abuse one another, neglect their children, or cheat on each other? Is that the kind of union that ought to exist? I say we should be giving these gay couples the same chance at union that we are giving to every other man and women who are making a joke out of this holy bond. If a gay couple is serious enough to not only admit that they are gay, live a gay lifestyle, and fight for their right to marry their gay partner, then chances are they are a lot more prepared for this union then the average man and woman marriage.
The next part of this definition I find insulting is the section about underage children having no will power to marry. It clearly states that anyone under a certain age does not posses a legal point of intellect, and can therefore not marry without the consent of their parents. HOWEVER, like I said in my last blog, there are people all over the world and even in the United States who are still performing arranged, underage, and forced marriages, all which would be considered invalid if it weren't for the signature of their parents. Yet these marriages are somehow legal and accepted, while full-grown homosexual adults who are neither idiots, lunatics, or infants, are not given these same rights.
Last time I checked, liking someone of your same sex didn't make you a lunatic or an idiot, and it definitely doesn't make you an infant.....so why can't they marry?
