In English and American law, coverture refers to women's legal status after marriage: legally, upon marriage, the husband and wife were treated as one entity. In essence, the wife's separate legal existence disappeared as far as property rights were concerned.
Under coverture, wives could not control their own property unless specific provisions were made before marriage, they could not file lawsuits or be sued separately, nor could they execute contracts. The husband could use, sell or dispose of her property (again, unless prior provisions were made) without her permission.
See the entry on property rights for some events in American legal history which extended women's property rights and affected coverture laws.
Oh, it wasn't all that long ago that coverture was a very real part of marriage:
In 1886, a Judge Valentine ruled that two free-love activists, Lillian Harman and Edwin Walker, did not have a valid marriage even under common-law rules because their union did not fulfill the traditional characteristics. The “essentials” of marriage which Valentine listed included: life-long commitment, a wife’s obedience to the husband, the husband’s absolute control over all property, the wife taking the husband’s last name, the right of the husband to force sexual intercourse on an unwilling wife (that would be rape, by the way), and the right of the husband to control and have custody of any children.
Valentine's decision mirrors the arguments made by opponents of gay marriage today. His sincerity and conviction were no less than the sincerity and conviction of those who claim that a valid marriage, by definition, cannot exist for same-sex couples.
That darn 'Women's agenda' messed with the deifintion since then.
Silly are the goddy tawdry maudlin for they shall christgeewhiz bow down before him: bedead old men, priest and prester, babeling a pitterpatternoster: no word is still the word, but, a loafward has become lord.
Ronald Suffield, "The Tenth Beatitude"
a fun article on how even some religious words have changed can be found at:
Of course, Hap if you say that you have to follow it with the caveat that "not all change is good either" just so everyone understands.
The tradition of our founding fathers concerning marriage left married women more as property than as people. It took quite a while to get that turned around.
That was a good article -Thanks HAP--I ve always been interested in the dynamism of the English Language..
Interesting article from OKC as well, Old Testament marriage many times was a "multipartner" arrangement, I dont know when these "wordchangers" decided on their own meaning ( ) i.e. that it had always meant "one man and one woman".
Where exactly is it defined that way except in "the traditions of men"
Another interesting point on the definition from a biblical standpoint here:
Although by God's definition the union of two things is a marriage (Revelation 21:9-10), the union of gay couples in New Jersey won't be called by its rightful name, at least not today.
Maybe if some decide to follow the constitutional amendment route, while they are at it they could also vote on a biblical amendment and petition God to outlaw the marriage of the lamb and the bride based on their own decided definition of what a marriage really should be.
but do i understand correctly that the author of the article is giving biblical commentary?!? =:~o
what qualifications do they have for this?
i'm guessing none...
otherwise, they wouldn't make such a ridiculous assumption that homosexuals are being singled out for the label of "sinners"... ALL of us are sinners... this is not some special label reserved only for homosexuals... this label applies to the whole of mankind... for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... none doeth good, no, NOT ONE...
do you see what a tangled mess you get yourself into by not confronting the issue head on?
peace,
jen-o
p.s. i may live to regret that statement... LOL
Not at all Jeno . I see two words marriage and coverture two distinct words with distinct meanings. not the one in the same. Eating is a part of marriage as well So? it has nothing to do with the definition. Association with marriage does not define it.
but do i understand correctly that the author of the article is giving biblical commentary?!? =:~o
what qualifications do they have for this?
i'm guessing none...
otherwise, they wouldn't make such a ridiculous assumption that homosexuals are being singled out for the label of "sinners"... ALL of us are sinners... this is not some special label reserved only for homosexuals... this label applies to the whole of mankind... for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... none doeth good, no, NOT ONE...
peace,
jen-o
The Purple Pew, an online Christ-led organization, news source, and community for straight and gay Christians who believe that serving God through faith in Christ undoubtly involves the active pursuit of truth, equality and justice for all.
Mission
The Purple Pew's purpose is to stand up for the truth regarding what the Bible really says about homosexuality, marriage, justice and the Christian faith, holding firm to Holy Scripture and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Declaration Of Equality
We declare that with God there is no respect of persons, partiality or variance regardless of sexual orientation. Marriage is honorable in all and for all, especially those who live by faith in Christ. Therefore, all persons who profess the name of Jesus as Lord and Savior are heirs to the throne of God by faith in Christ, His only begotten Son, who died for all, especially those who believe, without partiality or hypocrisy.
Responsibility
It is our responsibility and duty as Christ’s chosen servants to speak, live, and teach the truth according to God’s Word with passion and perseverance. Anything less is an injustice to humanity and a disgrace to God.
Statement of Faith
About the Founder
VL Carey is the Founding Executive Director of The Purple Pew. She is also the author of Connecting the Biblical Dots, the foundation on which The Purple Pew is built.
V.L. Carey has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology. She served in the United States Army’s Signal Corps for five years, achieved the rank of Sergeant, and received an honorable discharge. Carey was born and raised Southern Baptist but is now a non-denominational Bible-based Christian (who also happens to be gay). She has two college-age daughters and currently resides in Evansville, Indiana.
but the debate is really not about God loving people; it is about whether God approves of certain behavior...
I wonder. The issue seems to be taking turns as a semantic question and as a religious question. There are arguments to establish how to use the word "marriage" to limit it to one man and one woman, or to include same-sex couples. There are also arguments that use passages from the bible to establish that there is no way that same-sex marriage can be legitimate, while others argue that there are no absolute textual grounds for any such claim.
I think that marriage is a cultural entity, not one that exists or is represented solely by either the civic or the religious. It occupies a shared space, and as such, it expresses itself in a variety of combinations in various locations and at various points in history. What it always represents, though, is the formation of a legal entity and the establishment of legal protection by way of a legally binding contract. That is a key element of the argument, but one that consistently gets overlooked.
My reply to the second argument is that I wouldn't start quoting an historical religious text to bolster arguments for, say, the right for women to vote, or, even more of a stretch, to write tax laws. Can you imagine?
What got me to thinking about this was a post by WhiteDove that I saw in another thread that read as follows:
...Why can't gays be happy with equal presentation, it seems that is never good enough... they want what has stood the test of time to change for them.
This, I think, is the heart of the question. I think it's a culturally valid question, and it's one that I feel I can answer: lesbian and gay folks aren't happy with "equal presentation" because it isn't equal: Marriage-Substitute is an Equivalency rather than an Equality.
Establishing a facsimile like a "civic union" or whatever doesn't bestow the same universal legal protections to persons who wish to enter into the same contract, assuming the same legal rights and responsibilities, as heterosexuals routinely enjoy when they marry.
I think "marriage" may occupy a "shared space" in our culture as you said, but just not in the same space at the same time necessarily. The Catholic church has the right to deny people who have been divorced, or who are gay, or who are not catholic, but all of those same people can go get married somewhere else. In a Catholic church one might consider the marriage of a divorced person to another a violation of the sacred institution of marriage. In the civil arena it is common practice. It should be the same for gay couples. No one should "force acceptance" of homosexuality "down the throat" of any religious institution and no one is shoving acceptance down the throat of an individual.
"They are looking for equality not equivalency" is exactly the way to put it.
I wonder. The issue seems to be taking turns as a semantic question and as a religious question. There are arguments to establish how to use the word "marriage" to limit it to one man and one woman, or to include same-sex couples. There are also arguments that use passages from the bible to establish that there is no way that same-sex marriage can be legitimate, while others argue that there are no absolute textual grounds for any such claim.
I think that marriage is a cultural entity, not one that exists or is represented solely by either the civic or the religious. It occupies a shared space, and as such, it expresses itself in a variety of combinations in various locations and at various points in history. What it always represents, though, is the formation of a legal entity and the establishment of legal protection by way of a legally binding contract. That is a key element of the argument, but one that consistently gets overlooked.
My reply to the second argument is that I wouldn't start quoting an historical religious text to bolster arguments for, say, the right for women to vote, or, even more of a stretch, to write tax laws. Can you imagine?
What got me to thinking about this was a post by WhiteDove that I saw in another thread that read as follows:
This, I think, is the heart of the question. I think it's a culturally valid question, and it's one that I feel I can answer: lesbian and gay folks aren't happy with "equal presentation" because it isn't equal: Marriage-Substitute is an Equivalency rather than an Equality.
Establishing a facsimile like a "civic union" or whatever doesn't bestow the same universal legal protections to persons who wish to enter into the same contract, assuming the same legal rights and responsibilities, as heterosexuals routinely enjoy when they marry.
Which would YOU want?
I believe we covered this point fix the terminology not change the definition of a word.
We have men's bathrooms and woman's bathrooms, there is a reason for each. Just because someone decides that they think one or the other should admit both we don't change the words. Both have however equal rights ,one can use the toilet wash hands ect. and yet they have different words to describe what they are. It is a misnomer to claim that a civil union is not equal rights any laws that are unequal can easily be changed to include in their reading marriage and or civil union as both qualifying for the same benefits. Many of the benefits have already been changed. Going back to the bathroom analogy if some benefit is lacking in the men's room that the ladies has we don't need to change the name, we just correct the situation so that both have the same benefit.
Not, I think, strictly speaking, a misnomer. Again, I don't see this as a lexicographical or semantic issue.
To begin with, consider DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. By that piece of legistlation, it is impossible for same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal rights, priveleges, and protections afforded automatically to their heterosexual counterparts when they marry. Marriage offers those legal rights, priveleges, and protections. Deliberately and explicitly excluding a segment of the population from enjoying those legal entitlements could easily be viewed as legislated discrimination. That is not a mere semantic difference. It's a real, legal difference. As for just changing things to be more inclusive... I don't know how easily that can be changed, and besides which, there already exists a mechanism to afford people those rights.
In the second place, a bathroom analogy is both semiotically unfortunate and, I think, inaccurate. One isn't arguing for unisex washrooms, but equal representation under the law. Equal, not special, protections.
I've got a slightly different analogy. One could just as easily say everybody should be able to live in a House, but a lot of people who live in a House don't want to allow some certain folks to live in the House with them. But they can live in a Hovel. So why should these folks have to accept being happy with having to live in a Hovel, kept out of the House? Why wait for the day that Hovel is upgraded, board by hard-won board, until it finally can be considered a House? And if enough changes are made to the Hovel... wouldn't it eventually end up being a House? I seriously don't get the whole semantic argument here.
A rose by any other name could be a petunia, you might say.
Recommended Posts
WhiteDove
Looks like folks in Jersey can read a dictionary and understand what a word means and what it does not. Unfortunatly the same can't be said for CA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
just not any contemporary dictionaries.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Right, the ones with real word meanings. Not those altered by pro gay agendas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
you mean THIS one?:
coverture
From Jone Johnson Lewis,
Your Guide to Women's History.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Definition:
In English and American law, coverture refers to women's legal status after marriage: legally, upon marriage, the husband and wife were treated as one entity. In essence, the wife's separate legal existence disappeared as far as property rights were concerned.
Under coverture, wives could not control their own property unless specific provisions were made before marriage, they could not file lawsuits or be sued separately, nor could they execute contracts. The husband could use, sell or dispose of her property (again, unless prior provisions were made) without her permission.
See the entry on property rights for some events in American legal history which extended women's property rights and affected coverture laws.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Oh, it wasn't all that long ago that coverture was a very real part of marriage:
That darn 'Women's agenda' messed with the deifintion since then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Perhaps some would enjoy THIS sentence:
a fun article on how even some religious words have changed can be found at:
http://www.langmaker.com/ml0104.htm
Change is not all bad!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Of course, Hap if you say that you have to follow it with the caveat that "not all change is good either" just so everyone understands.
The tradition of our founding fathers concerning marriage left married women more as property than as people. It took quite a while to get that turned around.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Interesting article from OKC as well, Old Testament marriage many times was a "multipartner" arrangement, I dont know when these "wordchangers" decided on their own meaning (
) i.e. that it had always meant "one man and one woman".
Where exactly is it defined that way except in "the traditions of men"
Another interesting point on the definition from a biblical standpoint here:
Maybe if some decide to follow the constitutional amendment route, while they are at it they could also vote on a biblical amendment and petition God to outlaw the marriage of the lamb and the bride based on their own decided definition of what a marriage really should be.
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
whitedove,
do you see what a tangled mess you get yourself into by not confronting the issue head on?
peace,
jen-o
p.s. i may live to regret that statement... LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
OCW,
i'm not sure where you got this article,
but do i understand correctly that the author of the article is giving biblical commentary?!? =:~o
what qualifications do they have for this?
i'm guessing none...
otherwise, they wouldn't make such a ridiculous assumption that homosexuals are being singled out for the label of "sinners"... ALL of us are sinners... this is not some special label reserved only for homosexuals... this label applies to the whole of mankind... for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... none doeth good, no, NOT ONE...
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Not at all Jeno . I see two words marriage and coverture two distinct words with distinct meanings. not the one in the same. Eating is a part of marriage as well So? it has nothing to do with the definition. Association with marriage does not define it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
The Purple Pew, an online Christ-led organization, news source, and community for straight and gay Christians who believe that serving God through faith in Christ undoubtly involves the active pursuit of truth, equality and justice for all.
Mission
The Purple Pew's purpose is to stand up for the truth regarding what the Bible really says about homosexuality, marriage, justice and the Christian faith, holding firm to Holy Scripture and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Declaration Of Equality
We declare that with God there is no respect of persons, partiality or variance regardless of sexual orientation. Marriage is honorable in all and for all, especially those who live by faith in Christ. Therefore, all persons who profess the name of Jesus as Lord and Savior are heirs to the throne of God by faith in Christ, His only begotten Son, who died for all, especially those who believe, without partiality or hypocrisy.
Responsibility
It is our responsibility and duty as Christ’s chosen servants to speak, live, and teach the truth according to God’s Word with passion and perseverance. Anything less is an injustice to humanity and a disgrace to God.
Statement of Faith
About the Founder
VL Carey is the Founding Executive Director of The Purple Pew. She is also the author of Connecting the Biblical Dots, the foundation on which The Purple Pew is built.
V.L. Carey has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology. She served in the United States Army’s Signal Corps for five years, achieved the rank of Sergeant, and received an honorable discharge. Carey was born and raised Southern Baptist but is now a non-denominational Bible-based Christian (who also happens to be gay). She has two college-age daughters and currently resides in Evansville, Indiana.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
thanks for the info, ocw...
just 2 quick comments...
of course, God is not a respecter of persons...but there is respect with regard to actions...
i'm still waiting for someone to succinctly state how the bible supports homosexuality... (and tell me what they think it "really says")p.s. if this is a christian organization, don't they realize that everybody is a sinner? (where's the head scratching icon... LOL)
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
how's jimmy mc greevey doing ? i think he's studying for some kind of minister thingy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
jen-o...i do not have the answers to any of your questions.....buti do have many gay friends and i support
them and do not judge them,and ofcourse we are all sinners even the person who eats too much chocholate
cake!
But..I do believe God is love even if you eat too much chocolate cake!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
ocw,
i wasn't really asking you that question...
i was just wondering aloud...
i did check out "the purple pew" website...
but still could not find the answer to my question...
i also went to the "connecting the dots" website...
but the best i could find was an argument that says:
it is not homosexuality that is a sin; but rather it is sodomy that is the sin...
i'm a little confused by this and i don't want to get graphic here,
but don't male homosexuals engage in sodomy?
anyway, i'm just trying to find the argument in favor of the bible supporting homosexuality...
yes, of course, God loves homosexuals...
i have never questioned that...
God loves all sinners; that is why Jesus came to earth...
but the debate is really not about God loving people; it is about whether God approves of certain behavior...
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
From the Purple Pew Site:
What Does the Bible Actually Say about Being Gay?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cake
I wonder. The issue seems to be taking turns as a semantic question and as a religious question. There are arguments to establish how to use the word "marriage" to limit it to one man and one woman, or to include same-sex couples. There are also arguments that use passages from the bible to establish that there is no way that same-sex marriage can be legitimate, while others argue that there are no absolute textual grounds for any such claim.
I think that marriage is a cultural entity, not one that exists or is represented solely by either the civic or the religious. It occupies a shared space, and as such, it expresses itself in a variety of combinations in various locations and at various points in history. What it always represents, though, is the formation of a legal entity and the establishment of legal protection by way of a legally binding contract. That is a key element of the argument, but one that consistently gets overlooked.
My reply to the second argument is that I wouldn't start quoting an historical religious text to bolster arguments for, say, the right for women to vote, or, even more of a stretch, to write tax laws. Can you imagine?
What got me to thinking about this was a post by WhiteDove that I saw in another thread that read as follows:
This, I think, is the heart of the question. I think it's a culturally valid question, and it's one that I feel I can answer: lesbian and gay folks aren't happy with "equal presentation" because it isn't equal: Marriage-Substitute is an Equivalency rather than an Equality.Establishing a facsimile like a "civic union" or whatever doesn't bestow the same universal legal protections to persons who wish to enter into the same contract, assuming the same legal rights and responsibilities, as heterosexuals routinely enjoy when they marry.
Which would YOU want?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Very good points, cake.
I think "marriage" may occupy a "shared space" in our culture as you said, but just not in the same space at the same time necessarily. The Catholic church has the right to deny people who have been divorced, or who are gay, or who are not catholic, but all of those same people can go get married somewhere else. In a Catholic church one might consider the marriage of a divorced person to another a violation of the sacred institution of marriage. In the civil arena it is common practice. It should be the same for gay couples. No one should "force acceptance" of homosexuality "down the throat" of any religious institution and no one is shoving acceptance down the throat of an individual.
"They are looking for equality not equivalency" is exactly the way to put it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I believe we covered this point fix the terminology not change the definition of a word.
We have men's bathrooms and woman's bathrooms, there is a reason for each. Just because someone decides that they think one or the other should admit both we don't change the words. Both have however equal rights ,one can use the toilet wash hands ect. and yet they have different words to describe what they are. It is a misnomer to claim that a civil union is not equal rights any laws that are unequal can easily be changed to include in their reading marriage and or civil union as both qualifying for the same benefits. Many of the benefits have already been changed. Going back to the bathroom analogy if some benefit is lacking in the men's room that the ladies has we don't need to change the name, we just correct the situation so that both have the same benefit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cake
Not, I think, strictly speaking, a misnomer. Again, I don't see this as a lexicographical or semantic issue.
To begin with, consider DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. By that piece of legistlation, it is impossible for same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal rights, priveleges, and protections afforded automatically to their heterosexual counterparts when they marry. Marriage offers those legal rights, priveleges, and protections. Deliberately and explicitly excluding a segment of the population from enjoying those legal entitlements could easily be viewed as legislated discrimination. That is not a mere semantic difference. It's a real, legal difference. As for just changing things to be more inclusive... I don't know how easily that can be changed, and besides which, there already exists a mechanism to afford people those rights.
In the second place, a bathroom analogy is both semiotically unfortunate and, I think, inaccurate. One isn't arguing for unisex washrooms, but equal representation under the law. Equal, not special, protections.
I've got a slightly different analogy. One could just as easily say everybody should be able to live in a House, but a lot of people who live in a House don't want to allow some certain folks to live in the House with them. But they can live in a Hovel. So why should these folks have to accept being happy with having to live in a Hovel, kept out of the House? Why wait for the day that Hovel is upgraded, board by hard-won board, until it finally can be considered a House? And if enough changes are made to the Hovel... wouldn't it eventually end up being a House? I seriously don't get the whole semantic argument here.
A rose by any other name could be a petunia, you might say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.