Comments on: Why history says gay people can’t marry…nor can anyone else*

By: Why History Says Gay People Can’t Marry: Nor Can Anyone Else* | Helen Berry

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:40:08 +0000

[...] University Press blog - Why History Says Gay People Can’t Marry: Nor Can Anyone Else* *(unless they have kids of their own) This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink. [...]

By: OUPblog » Blog Archive » On taste and morality: from William Hogarth to Grayson Perry

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 07:32:22 +0000

[...] now available in paperback(2012). If you liked this, try Helen Berry’s OUPblog articles on why history says gay people can’t marry and an analysis of Royal [...]

By: Oscar Blanco

Oscar Blanco — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:33:26 +0000

First of all, thank you Ms. Berry for a great article. I believe the issue might be a semantical one. Many Americans view the term “marriage” as a religious term, not as a secular law term. If this was the case, if the word “marriage” was indeed a religious term, then, it could be claimed that it could not be used even in secular law. For instance, the law cannot use the term Yahweh or God outside any religious context without violating an almost obvious philosophical copyright. The question is: Can religion claim the word “marriage” for its exclusive use? Uncovering the answer would require research and historians doing good work to better understand the etymology and overall history of the word. But, what is more important would be the consequences of closely analyzing and faithfully following this historical analysis. If indeed marriage is a religious term, then, the law would have not jurisdiction is confirming any kind of “marriage.” The law would be limited to making legal unions and could not, or ought, recognize anything else. All marriages under the law and all the benefits that this one offers would be considered a legal contract between two parties. So, the gay community would not get their “marriage” word, but would get equality. Conversely, if the term cannot be claimed as a religious one then there is no reason to limit marriage to only a man and a woman. In conclusion, it just seems to me that the word “marriage” is carrying a context- a religious one -which refers, accurately or not, to a tradition and to religious tenets. If the term “marriage” is claimed by religion then only inside a church can marriage can be confirmed, if not, then all lawful marriages are to be renamed to social unions with equal rights across the board. Either way gays should get equal rights.

By: On the Purpose of Marriage | conclusions most forbidden

On the Purpose of Marriage | conclusions most forbidden — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:50:20 +0000

[...] and His Wife (a book about famous opera singer Giusto Ferdinando Tenducci), writing for the Oxford University Press blog. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in [...]

By: CN

CN — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:18:37 +0000

@Gay Book I am not sure if you have understood the point of the article. Dr Berry is in fact pro gay marriage and is making the point that, until relatively recently, definitions of marriage would have even excluded many ‘straight’ couples – yet another reason to redefine marriage!

By: Gender Across Borders » Blog Archive » Global Feminist Link Love: August 8-14

Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:01:49 +0000

[...] Why history says gay people can’t marry … nor can anyone else*. (Oxford University Press) [...]

By: Why history says gay people can’t marry | Kiwianglo's Blog

Why history says gay people can’t marry | Kiwianglo's Blog — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:20:55 +0000

[...] history says gay people can’t marry…nor can anyone else* permalink buy this book Posted on Monday, August 8th, 2011 at 8:33 [...]

By: Gay Book

Gay Book — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 10:37:42 +0000

Are you trying to say that we get married to have kids? What about love? you can ask this question to even a straight people; I’m sure they will contradict from you view.

By: CN

CN — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:17:06 +0000

@ETerry
Because in the USA, what the church(es) say is still considered uber important, whether it objectively is important or not…Christian groups have a lot of power over there. So it does matter. I think it probably matters to all the LGBT Christians too..

By: ETerry

ETerry — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:31:57 +0000

The history is interesting, but honestly, in this day and age, who gives a rat’s behind about anything a church, Christian or otherwise, has to say about anything? Their superstitious positions are irrelevant to the rational discussion of any topic.

By: drdanfee

drdanfee — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:58:07 +0000

Please allow me one more comment? If the gaps in rational weighing of married straights are vivid and striking, then a corollary distance must also be noted in the USA Christian right’s silence about the care/well-being of all the children being raised by LGB parents. We usually hear, either a claim that all LGB parenting is uniformly awful, dangerous, (and sometimes, hints of dirty?), or a wide gapped silence about why the well-being of children in committed couple families does not register on the civil, legal, and/or religious radar that is supposed to be … ALL … about … children. As Lewis Carroll has Alice say, “…curioser, and curioser”.
drdanfee / USA / Berkeley

By: drdanfee

drdanfee — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:48:08 +0000

Dear Ms. Berry, thanks lots for adding in some real, factual history to the polarized, argumentative streams of the current controversy. The silence from the USA Christian right about straight couples who cannot make babies for various/sundry reasons is deliberate, not accidental. Their framework is categorically, straights only. Just where they actually store/hide their animus towards people who are not straight will depend on a mix of personality, situation, available hiding places – inner and/or outer? Arguing back rationally from history and facts reframes their claims, and that in itself is a deeply useful response so far as I can tell. Again, thanks, and bravo. drdanfee / USA / Berkeley

By: David in Houston

David in Houston — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:31:07 +0000

Your last paragraph regarding the “silence” pertaining to non-procreating (childless) couples from the anti-marriage equality crowd was actually ineptly answered by the renown author of The Manhattan Declaration and Founding Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, Robert George. He wrote a 40-page diatribe entitled What is Marriage? Basically, as long as the man can put his “member” into a female, then by-golly that’s good enough for George! It doesn’t really matter if they can procreate or not, it all comes down to plumbing. As for those that are incapable of procreating, such as senior citizens or infertile couples? Well, they make a good example of what “married couples” are suppose to look like. (Because otherwise teenagers wouldn’t have a clue what a married couple is.) So they all get a “free pass” to get married. Aren’t arbitrary rules fun? It must be a coincidence that all those free passes are given out to only straight people.

By: mollymooly

mollymooly — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:30:35 +0000

Catholics have the further wrinkle of the “Josephite marriage”, since St Joseph was married to the Virgin Mary but never had sex with her.

By: Scott F

Scott F — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:19:22 +0000

Those of us who adopt should be similarly denied marriage? Chances are we are all gay anyway, I suppose…