It seems quite a large jump to take a painting of two men standing in a vaguely wedding-like setting, made by someone who was not affiliated with the church, to saying that this means that the Church once condoned gay marriage. This is to me like saying that dogs do in fact know how to play poker, because they are depicted so in a famous painting.

(and no, before anybody reads anything into anything, I'm not saying that homosexuals are dogs and a marriage is a hand of poker )

I read the article, and it didn't sell me whatsoever. The examples the author provided sound more like business partnerships than what we would consider modern-day marriage. Yes, marriage is different now than what it was 200 years ago (used to be much more about politics and wealth rather than touchy-feely-love), but, it also used to be much more heavily about procreation than it is now. Today, it's not uncommon for a couple to plan not to have any children. A few hundred years ago, it was grounds for divorce (or just killing off your wife, ala King Henry XIII)

Sorry this is getting so wordy, but basically.... I think this guy is stretching to find something he wants to believe.