1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage (same-sex marriage) b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union the marriage of painting and poetry - J. T. Shawcross
[Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, via Pam’s House Blend]
I’m going to enjoy the spectacle of social conservatives accusing a dictionary of having a liberal bias and/or being shills for the “homosexual agenda.” But this isn’t about an agenda; it’s just a recognition of the growing worldwide acceptance of same-sex marriage. An associate editor of Webster’s explained it nicely:
We’re genuinely sorry when an entry in – or an omission from – one of our dictionaries is found to be offensive or upsetting, but we can’t allow such considerations to deflect us from our primary job as lexicographers
All of the sudden, I find myself agreeing that we shouldn’t change the definition of marriage. It’s perfect just the way it is.
I prefer God’s definition.
Yes to Civil Union’s, no to Marriage. Personally, I still believe those insisting on the term “marriage” are doing so because they insist on trying to get others to accept their moral values. If want homosexuals want is the same legal benefits - no problem. But don’t try and force your morals on others.
Do you mean by “force your morals on others” the fact that you advocate disallowing homosexuals from the same rights that straight people enjoy (the right to marry, for example)
Me too. Althought I doubt we agree on God’s definition. Do I get as many wives and concubines as Solomon or David or Jacob or Abraham? Or perhaps one man, one woman forever. The latter definiton leaves out most on the Radical Right’s constituency and many of their prominent leaders. Rush, Newt are two examples of Right Wingnut serial adulters. And do our Islamic citizens get to do what God tells them is OK? The rich one’s that go to the Mayo Clinic do for the duration of their visits, but what about the rest of the followers of Islam? Likewise do Mormons fundamentalists get to come out of the closet?
Then too it is possible that homosexuals are doing what is natural for them and thus, Paul’s condemnation of sex with temple prostitues does not count. Or maybe God is, as scripture tells us, still speaking and we are finally figuring out that homosexuals are part of the creation that God saw as good.
A Nony Noose,
“I prefer God’s definition.”
Are you trying to force your morals on others?
Reference that definition for us.
The christian bible’s definition is “an abomination”. This is the same bible that says it’s a good thing to kill your enemies, smash their children’s brains on the rocks, and take their women as prostitutes.
How’s that “Judge not lest ye be judged” going for you, ninny moose?
How about we take government out of defining any personal relationship. Get rid of state sponsored “marriage” and let people sign contracts that give each other the rights we now associate with that venture and let those who worship cosmic jewish zombies or multi armed elephant headed deities or whatever else go to their own churches for their spiritual clap trap.
Basically make all “marriage” civil unions. Legally nothing more than any other contractual obligation.
I agree 100% I am floored.
LOL for “cosmic jewish zombies”
Every-time somebody calls this a sexual or social issue I cringe. To me it is so much simpler, we are all equal citizens. The state of marriage is a legal condition with religious overtones. The law must treat us all as equal citizens. All of us including the foolish, the busybodies and “the people” that make up our country are equal under the Constitution.
I hate to piss in the cornflakes of a good old Bible quoting contest but it is meaningless in this discussion. Beyond meaningless because this has nothing to do with anybody’s morals, religion or psychology. It has to do with the civil rights of American citizens. Any lawful thing that one citizen can do, every citizen must be able to do it too. Every citizen has the right to create a couple, be it made of any of the varieties of human beings.
As far as it goes any two people, seemingly the desired number, can have a marriage. The ceremony doesn’t have to occur in any place that does not want that ceremony. Much like a rental hall that turns down a particular convention any church can inform people they do not do ceremonies of marriage other than one male and one female. I suggest that they do not take federal tax dollars when they do this though.
I will admit that if those religious people concerned with this “abomination” would follow to the letter the other provisions that go with that quote I’d support them. Come on dear Christians, go big or go home.
This is the type of issue that separates the moderate right with the Christian right.
The throwback Republicans, like me, don’t care about gay marriage. I actually am fine with it. I’m not going to fight for it, but I’m not going to fight against it. On my list of issues important to me, it is about #189. Let those who care about it duke it out, and tell me how it ended.
It is all about tolerence. Nony Moose showing more social tolerance for gays, and Pete showing more religious tolerance for the bible. If someone gets their life enjoyment from a lifestyle, or their strength and inspiration from a book, who am I to diminish that.
I consider myself a Christian. I have a closely held set of moral values. But I don’t plan to attempt to legislate either.
DantheMan says: It is all about tolerence.
Sorry, DantheMan, that’s not a good word choice nowadays. It might be all about ‘compassion’, but not ‘tolerance’. The word ‘tolerance’ has been framed by the right. If you are tolerant, you accept and even say ‘I agree.’
Personally, I think civil unions are a good compromise and would lead us in the right direction. There’s a lot to that word marriage. Civil unions would be the same thing, legally?
Tolerant is an accurate and descriptive word to me in this scenario. It tells me that the point is not to always agree on everything, the point is to coexist in a productive way.
I’m not gay, but I work with several people who are. They do good work and are quality individuals. I’m not a fundementalist bible-banger, but I work with some who are. Again, they do good work and are good people.
Now, those are some pretty different viewpoints coming from those two groups who I work with. I’m not asking them to all agree with each other, sit down and sing kumbaya. I am asking that they all act with respect toward each other, and seek out the value that each other brings to the workplace that they share. I call it tolerance, and sorry if its already been framed by someone.
I prefer God’s definition
Which god would that be? The same one that says eating shellfish is a mortal sin?
Okay DantheMan, I get your drift. You sound like a good guy.
I prefer God’s definition
Uh oh. Where is this going… shellfish is a mortal sin? Not a NT thing at all.
Marriage is a religious sacrament. My reference point is my catholic upbringing. The other sacraments, as I recall, are Baptism, Confirmation, Communion, Confession, Ordination and the Anointing of the Sick. None of these other sacraments are State sanctioned. Why must marriage be?
The State is us. The State sanctions contracts between individuals to form households, the basic unit of our society. The restrictions imposed by those contracts should be consistent with our constitution and the public interest. We do not allow legislation that infringes on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of individuals. Not allowing gay unions is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
As the “throwback Republican” DanTheMan points out, this is about tolerance. Gays should respect the rights of religious groups to define their sacraments. The right wingers, who so often claim to be strict constitutionalists, should not use secular law to impose their beliefs and limit the rights of all citizens to the benefits that civil unions confer. If gays want to marry, they should work with the churches on that. If they want the benefits of civil unions, that is a State issue and in that arena, their rights are clear. We don’t need to separate church and state, we need to divorce them.
The intolerance that exists today is largely the result of the extreme political polarization which both parties have engaged in to solidify their bases around special interest politics. Both sides are guilty. The far right has been organized around an extreme agenda of intolerance that is contradictory to the teachings of Jesus Christ, their namesake. The far left has been organized around an agenda that promotes the rights of protected classes when there is really only one class of rights that needs protecting, human rights.
It was Jesus who admonished his followers to “judge not lest ye be judged”. That is the essence of tolerance. Martin Luther King hoped for a day when his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. That is a plea for human rights.
Between the far left and the far right is a fertile middle ground that we need to rediscover. What divides us is far less important than what unites us. Like DanTheMan, most of us are just sick of the fighting and we want to move on and get something done.
The gay marriage issue is not a religious one, in terms of the state. It is simply a societal issue. Try this…the marriage ceremony can be religious, if wanted, or secular, if wanted. So, the religious argument is out. Whats left? The legal issue.
The legal issue is not one dependent on a specific “right”. There is NO defined “right” to marriage, in the way we use the word in our Constitution. So, to be clear on the legal side…there is no RIGHT to MARRIAGE.
Going further, the last remaining issue is one of the LEGAL benefits of marriage. OK…I’ll accept that. There are but two legal issues here. One is the ability to file joint, married income taxes, and the other is the legal assignment of benefits via government programs…social security for instance. Other than that, there is NO other legal roadblock that prevents gays from entering into their own unions. What they are really asking for is a few financial benefits given by the state to married couples…and, in a larger sense….they are asking for recognition by our society.
Why is marriage, the union, recognized by a SOCIETY with a few financial benefits? Easy…procreation of the species. If you go back through time you will see that societies, WITHOUT governments, gave marriage, the union between a man and a woman, recognition with financial rewards. 1000 years ago in Africa, tribes recognized the union of a man and woman with a few fiscal rewards too. I new hut, a cow, gifts, etc. The families pledged certain goods to the new couple as a way of recognizing the union. But why recognize it? Because it guaranteed the continuance of the species within a genetic lineage. The tribe was REWARDING the union because the union would create A…a new family structure with a tracable lineage (sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles…to prevent inter-family breeding) and B…children. The additional work required to have children and maintain the family structure is why these unions, marriage, were rewarded FINANCIALLY.
What we have today is just a continuance of these old traditions. We give, as a society, a FEW financial rewards to people who commit themselves to start a family (procreation and genetic lineage) as a sort of “thank you” for the continuance of the species. This is done NOW, in AMerica, within the context of a modern society, but the roots of marriage are still the same. Marriage is just a word that the government must use in order to quantify the benefits it gives to married couples versus “shackerupers” and same sex unions…at the behest of the society.
If you think about it, there are FEW things same sex couples cannot do that married couples can…and those few things are FINANCIAL in nature. Same sex couples CAN make ANY union they wish to make, secular or not. BUT…should we redefine the BENEFITS of marriage, from a legal standpoint, when same sex couples cannot procreate with a genetic lineage? If you believe in NATURE…you can say that NATURE does not hold a place for homosexuality. It is against nature…in these terms, because nature cannot, by default, accept, or promote homosexuality. Species would not exist under a homosexual nature. So, I do not place homosexuality in the arena of religion, I place it in the arena of the natural world.
Lastly…when a society has the most BASIC of tenets…like marriage…families….procreation….it cannot and should not bend those tenets so that a FEW may share in some recognition at the cost of MANY.
I had a conversation with a gay friend who was dumbfounded as to why gay people WANTED to be married LEGALLY. When pressed, he said that marriage is not what its cracked up to be, the courts would have to deal with new legal issues never before tried, and the it would create the atmosphere for all other “groups” to ask for the same benefits…polygamists, etc. HE said, and I agree, that since gays have started to press this issue, by trying to shove it down the throats of people who are unwilling to allow it, it has created more division and backlash then it has done in the positive.
The public has spoken…btw.
Must… resist… urge… to…. feed… idiot…. troll…. so…. many…. misconceptions….. argh!!
You’re funny Joey
Maybe just dispell the misconceptions?
While I with this Ron: If they want the benefits of civil unions, that is a State issue and in that arena, their rights are clear. We don’t need to separate church and state, we need to divorce them.
I wonder about this: The intolerance that exists today is largely the result of the extreme political polarization which both parties have engaged in to solidify their bases around special interest politics. Both sides are guilty. The far right has been organized around an extreme agenda of intolerance that is contradictory to the teachings of Jesus Christ, their namesake. The far left has been organized around an agenda that promotes the rights of protected classes when there is really only one class of rights that needs protecting, human rights.
What would you suggest the left do, again?
The “Left” can’t do anything about it given their basic ideals. As the power of the state increases the competition to have control of that power will increase and become more vicious. The only way to change the polarization and conflicts is to either eliminate the state power people are fighting over or to eliminate the ability for people to fight over it by officially instituting a more authoritarian system so people understand there is nothing for them to do about it.
You seem afraid of too much power in one spot. If so, I’m with you on that, there needs to be a check and balance system, and we benefit from two parties bringing different views to the table. The best for us all lies in the middle of the spectrum, with the middle being decided by the people.
But to jump to instituting a more authoritarian system is the opposite of what I thought you’d argue, so now I don’t get it.
I believe the reason people are fighting for civil unions and/ or gay marriage has more to do with legal pain and suffering. Right now there’s a lot of discrimination that happens over issues like who gets the kids if someone dies and who gets the money and who gets the health care benefits and etc.
As a faith based person, I’d like to see civil unions help end the discrimination. It’s a step in the right direction if we focus on the NT. I like Hebrews the best, not Paul, so don’t jump to any conclusions thank you.
Holly,
I am not advocating for a more authoritarian system in any way. It is simply the end result of a powerful state. Those who advocate for a powerful state that can give them what they want must accept the corresponding level of corruption. A corruption that manifests itself in many ways. Not just simple bribes but the constant half-truths and lies used by all interested parties to manipulate public opinion. The end result of a powerful state is authoritarian. It doesn’t matter what the intentions were of those who created it.
Maybe I found the core of much disagreement. Ron says that “The State is us”. A pleasant sounding but both functionally and technically incorrect. The state is nothing but the body which legally can use force to gain compliance. The “us” does not exist in a way that could ever be represented in a consistent way. There are to many people with contradictory views and beliefs for the term “us” to have any meaning that has anything functionally to do with how the force of the state is used. Since we now have few, for practical purposes no, restrictions on the areas in which the state has purview how the power of the state is used is becoming an ever increasing area of contention. For us state power is given to the plurality as filtered through a highly entrenched and codified bureaucratic power structure which is to a great extent controlled by two private clubs not held to any external standards as they are the ones who write the standards. In turn this allows the power of the state (the power to use force) to be manipulated by those who have the resources to bend either the bureaucrats or the mood of a plurality of the people.
That the state has unlimited power restricted not by any set of standards means that we are all subject to the whims of the system. The same system some support so that it can be used to manipulate money and property can be used to manipulate the meaning of marriage and start wars. The state is nothing more than a massive weapon and those who think the only problem is who wields it have very short memories.
Kerosene Hat: In turn this allows the power of the state (the power to use force) to be manipulated by those who have the resources to bend either the bureaucrats or the mood of a plurality of the people.
Yes, those bureaucrats. It’s better to look at the elected folk to see where your power lies. And money does talk. We’re a capitalistic society and so I guess that’s part of it.
But the core of much agreement you found… what is it, and does it relate to civil unions or gay marriage? Or religion.. or what.
If you want people to be consistently free to define their relationships as they see fit, civil unions and marriage are among these, you must have a state with very limited authority. Otherwise those with the ability and resources to manipulate the system will have the power to define those relationships.
People already define their relationships as they see fit. It’s just the health care companies, the insurance companies, the laws regarding estates, and etc. that don’t go along with the people. If the fed and MN govn’t decided to recognize civil unions, there would be changes made in one fell swoop.
I don’t see that as too much power.
It seems like whenever the gay marriage issue comes up in discussions, it nearly always devolves into a semantic red herring. The real question that everybody should address is:
Should same-sex couples have ALL the rights and privileges that opposite-sex couples have?
(Caveat: There may be some rights of opposite-sex couples that don’t make sense for same-sex couples. I can’t think of any off the top of my head, but if so they can be dealt with individually.)
There is a sizeable section of the population that would answer No to this question. That’s the real issue.
Pete;
That “sizeable section” is a clear minority. It’s about the same size of the population that self-identifies as being republican.
I don’t think it has to do with rights. Decisions are made, but it’s about “right” and “wrong.”
That’s where we’ll find common ground. People that think “right and wrong” may think same-sex marriage is wrong, but also might think discriminating or hurting is wrong.
So why not compromise with civil unions? Take that step, use the courts to enforce the law, and years from now we’ll see a changed society. At the very least civil unions would immediately help pain and suffering, now.
Go for the majority vote on gay marriage, and take a giant step backwards. It’s a heave and roll kind of thing, but why duke this out for the next fifty years?
Holly, you asked what would I have the left do. I would have them focus on universal rights. We only recognize one class of humans today and we all fall into that class. It is true that in the past we institutionalized the idea that subclasses of humans existed based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or other factors. Focusing special attention on those classes made good sense at that time and some amount of reverse discrimination was necessary. Now that most of the laws that maintained that status quo are gone, what perpetuates the remnants of that status quo is the persistent separation of people into groups. It is the left that needs to break this habit so that we can move on. When we break out groups and craft laws aimed specifically at them, we are actually maintaining their separateness.
For example, who doesn’t think that civil union laws are specifically crafted for gays? And yet, there are many other optional combinations of people that form households and need the same legal benefits derived from that legal entity. For example, siblings often choose to form permanent households, caregivers and receivers sometimes form permanent households, and many couples who don’t want a church wedding still form a traditional household.
Another example would be the left’s approach to anti-bullying laws. Because these laws are often promoted by gays or specifically mention gays in the protected classes that the law prescribes, they are easily targeted by those who only want rights for people they like. No child, irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation should be bullied. All children need to be protected from this type of behavior equally so why emphasise protected classes. That strategy makes it easier for opponents of the left to divide and conquer.
The unions are another issue that the left needs to address in a more enlightened way. Much progress has been made in laws protecting the rights of workers. In some cases, union activity, as it is currently carried out, seems to work against the interests of workers. I believe that unions have an important role to play but I also believe that their role needs to change over time. The left needs to learn to accept its successes and move on to new challenges.
Fiscal responsibility is a phrase that the left chokes on almost as badly as Tim Pawlenty chokes on the phrase “new taxes” or Michelle Bachmann chokes on the term “Socialism”. When inflexible ideology slams head on into stark new reality, the ability to adapt is the airbag that saves you. If the left fails to adjust to the idea that fiscal responsibility is a non partisan issue and doesn’t share that ground, the right will swiftly reclaim that territory as its own. It are attempting to do this already and the left is largely oblivious to that fact.
Kerosene Hat, you are right that we citizens are vulnerable to those with the ability and resources to manipulate the system. That is precisely why the government needs to be stronger than any other entity that can control it; like the Wall Street bankers and media conglomerates that teamed up with the neoconservatives and right wing political operatives to put us into our current weakened state. We are in the process of taking back our government. It is better for us if our government owns a few corporations for a while than it would be to continue to allow a few corporations to own our government. That is a lesson the right needs to learn. Limited socialism can sometimes be a tool to preserve freedom.
Incidentally, there is a bill in the MN Senate currently in committee about expanding the scope of classes targeted for bullying. As an officer in her high school diversity club, my daughter attended Wednesday and spoke, along with students from high schools statewide. The overriding concern, especially from rural students, is the bullying directed at GLBT students.
Ron,
Your core contradiction persist. A government that no other entity is strong enough to control is an authoritarian regime. The power of government that is open to manipulation will always be manipulated to the benefit of the powerful. Whether they do it directly or through the proxy of elections makes little difference. The “we” in your statements “We are in the process of taking back our government” is a meaningless term that contradicts the idea of individual rights. You and a like minded plurality may be gaining the reigns of power but that power is only important because you plan to use it against the people with whom you disagree. I am one of those people. I am not wealthy or a coorporation yet you support the use of force to get me to comply with your ideals. If you accept that fact as necessary then you have little to complain about when the same logic is used to force you to comply with the ideals of others. Whether that is marriage or anything else.
Intersting thoughts. Addressing the idea as “rights in general” would have already covered it, then, and the specific discrimination would have already been addressed in 1964. Yes?
I think you are right about taking our government back and the need for some regulation. Unfettered capitalism has been proved to be disasterous. But I wouldn’t call it socialism. I like regulated capitalism.
Unfettered capitalism has proven disasterous. That’s what I meant. Damn me!
Kerosene Hat,
I contradict myself, the terms I use are meaningless, I am planning to use force in some way against those with whom I disagree, and I should be cautious that they will respond in kind.
Is there any sunshine or fresh air where you live?
I sense you have found the end of your logical string and have been left hanging with no support other than personal attacks based on broad characterizations. So much for treating people as individuals.
Even so as a matter of dispelling your simple bigotry I will give you this. I am happily married and live in Nordeast. I work downtown and commute via bicycle in the summer and bus in the winter because a second car seems like such a waste to travel 5 miles. I get all my groceries at the local co-op, farmers market or through a CSA. I have been fortunate enough to travel extensively through the U.S and Europe through my work. I have been politically active since I was 14, more than 20 years ago, and raised by wonderful and very liberal parents.
So yes. Plenty of fresh air and sunshine.
Kerosene Hat,
I havnt’t found the end of my logical string yet, but I’m working on it. I can see why you thought the fresh air and sunshine comment might have been a personal attack. It wasn’t intended that way. I was poking you a little to get a better idea where you are coming from. You argue like a liberal who is trying to prove he isn’t. I haven’t disagreed with much you’ve said so far except that I am not as concerned about the risks of abuse of power by governments as it seems that you might be. I worry about people not governments.
I’m married, 59, 5 kids, 5 grandkids and I work in healthcare. I care about this issue mainly because I think that it is a fundamental human rights issue. If you don’t protect them, you lose them. I was also raised as a Catholic back when Catholics were into social justice and before they imploded.
I’ve got no malice towards you KH. You seem like a good guy.
“God’s” definition? Frankly, I’d like to kindly ask your God (and everyone else’s) to keep His (their) nose(s) out of my government. He’s not in my Consitution.. except vaguely, when it mentions the date, and indirectly, when our government is mentioned as being unwelcome (and inappropriate) in His house.
Don,
First of all, homosexual behavior can be found consistently across (at least 1500) species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals), so your, “if you believe in NATURE” approach to this argument doesn’t seem to be such a good one. Interestingly, the rate of homosexuality seems to be consistent cross those species as well, suggesting (strongly) that such behavior is linked to genetics, not choice.
Secondly, if the rewards associated with marriage are designed to encourage child birth, perhaps we should begin to require fertility tests of all new couples who seek to wed? I believe that paying off people who either are incapable of bearing children, or who decide to withhold their fertility would be highly inappropriate under the system that you suggest. In fact, we could save a whole lot of money by instituting those tests and eliminating such pork-barrel spending. I assume that you would suport that?
Thirdly, I would dearly like to see how the ancient tribal systems of marriage were utilized across cultures “to prevent inter-family breeding.” I imagine the royal families of Europe (and anywhere else) would take issue with that idea — - not to mention at least half of our Founding Fathers, and several contemporary cultures who still marry 1st cousins. In fact, you might be interested in reading some of the latest research on that subject (William Saleton has written a lot about it in the “Human Nature” column at Slate.com). It turns out that consanguinity is no worse for the offspring than having children after the age of 33. Also, consanguinity seems to have played an extremely important role in the evolutionary history of several species.
Fourthly, once these arguments of “Tradition” and “Nature” are honestly and completely examined, there is little left to resist the passage of a law allowing everyone to marry… Unless you count religion. In that arena, I would like to argue that the single greatest contribution to the peace, productivity, and general success of this great nation came in the form of these words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” We are all required to respect the ability of our fellows to participate in whatever religion they wish, in what manner they see fit, so long as their practice does not interfere directly with the health and well-being of others — - and, so long as we all appreciate that religious belief alone is not an appropriate basis for law.
Fifthly, you say,”when a society has the most BASIC of tenets…like marriage…families….procreation….it cannot and should not bend those tenets so that a FEW may share in some recognition at the cost of MANY.” I could not disagree with you more strongly than I do on this point. If the majority of the country actually agreed with this statement, then most of the things people do in their bedrooms would still be illegal. The old Sodomy Laws didn’t just cover gay couples, they covered anything that was considered sodomy, and I think that you might be surprised to discover what some of those things were. Technically (AKA “legally”) most of the old Sodomy Laws covered any sexual act that did not lead to procreation. Perhaps you don’t enjoy sex outside of it’s procreative possibilities, but I imagine that a strong majority of the American public feels otherwise.
Finally, when societal changes are made, who has made them but society? The arguments for gay marriage have been made within the bounds of our agreed upon societal structure. We the People are the society, and we create the rules under which we live. No king but law. We established 53 years ago that the law cannot be applied in a way that is both separate and equal — - and I argue that is the only permissable standard to live by in a truly free society. If marriage laws apply to one person, then they must apply to all people. To do otherwise diminishes the rights of my fellow Americans, and I will not stand for that. As for the polygamy “argument,” I don’t care about that either — - so long as the people involved have become involved of their own volition.
I would further argue (re: polygamy) that most (if not all) of the problems that come from polygamous communities are the direct result of an overly invasive government forcing those people underground where all sorts of unsavory things become permissable. But, that is an argument for another time. We are talking about Gay Rights in this thread, not polygamists. Slippery slope arguments are ridiculous at the root — - unless you believe that we opened the flood gates to polygamous marriage when we created the first heterosexual, monogamous marriage laws. The question shouldn’t be “where does it end,” rather it should be “where does it really begin?”