The plain reality is that the concept and reality of marrige has evolved over the years. It has basically been a thoroughly patriarchal sexist institution for thousands of years, and most of the evolving occurred relatively recently, but it has evolved. In Christian societies, a large part of the patriarchal sexism in marriage can surely be blamed on the following dictate from the (Christian) Bible:
Ephesians 5:22 ﾂ"Wives, be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.ﾂ"
That sort of mentality is why Paul, whose original name was Saul, came to be known as Saul the Misogynist by some of those who were not particularly impressed by Christianity. That sort of mentality was also thoroughly dominant in Christian societies for nearly 2,000 years. It was only well into the 20th century that English speaking peoples started to drop the phrase "love, honor and obey" (emphasis added by me) from the bride's part of the standard marriage vows. So remember, when people insist that they want to retain "traditional marriage", i.e., they want to prevent same-sex couples from havnig equal rights, this is the sort of thing they are trying to retain, whether or not they admit it. The Southern Baptists (in general) are notoriously anti-gay. Let us not forget that these same anti-gay Southern Baptists, at their national convention in 1998, amended their statement of beliefs with a passage that included the following statement: A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ." Yes, that happened in the USA. However, everything opposing equal marriage rights I have seen from other countries is obviously the same mixture of ant-gay bigotry and partiarchal sexism. Patriarchal sexism, homophobia (don't anyone bother with straw-man fallacies about the word...I won't put up with it), racism, religious supremacism and other forms of bigotry have been unpleasant realities of human life for centuries. That doesn't mean that such bigotries deserve to become pseudo-respectable by being labeled "traditional". By the way, saying that same-sex couple ought to have equal marriage rights is not saying that couples must get married. It should be an option available to those who want it. And I am not impressed by quibbling about "marriage" versus "civil unions". I don't see many people wanting to make the term "civil union" legally applicable to opposite-sex couples. Basically, creating a "civil union" status only for same-sex couples is just an underhanded way of avoiding allowing same-sex couples to have equality, as far as I'm concerned. Two of our friends have been together for 28 years. We have encountered similar same-sex couples. They are doing far better with their relationships that Brittney Spears and the many, many people like her. And before the "sexual misconduct" issue raises its ugly head (again), I saw and heard of an enormous amount of heterosexual misconduct, hypocrisy, double standards, etc., during the years I was in the US Navy. Don't get me started. You won't like it. Finally, I'm disgusted by people who obviously think that homosexuality is terribly icky, "don't like" same-sex marriage, and therefore see fit to deny equal rights to homosexuals. If you don't like same-sex marriage, then don't enter into one! Simple!
