Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

We’re doomed.

By

From Kos, here's Future Republican nominee Mike Huckabee:

I don't think the issue's about being against gay marriage. It's about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that's important. You have to have a basic family structure. There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it's one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that's their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that's an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square.

It is true: This whole state has turned into such a toilet since we allowed gays to get married. And I hear the footsteps: We're gonna get invaded and annexed by Texas warships any day now. And that's not even mentioning the plague of locusts.

Seriously, when people start talking about gay marriage as a “threat”, is it really too much to demand how exactly bad stuff is going to start to happen? I mean, can you just please posit a mechanism?

OK, the charm is wearing off a bit. 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. he apparently has forgotten that we americans have already redefined marriage many, many times.  so far we have:
    1.  allowed the mixing of hallowed white blood with that of inferior races,
    2.  allowed what god (and the j.p.) has joined to be put asunder,
    3.  allowed evil homosexshuls to “marry”
    4.  allowed evil homosexshuls to foster, adopt or have children born to them,
    5.  allowed men’s wives to control their own wombs….

    <

    p>when did he say civilization collapsed?  shouldn’t it have happened already?  i’m waaaaitiiing foot tapping in impatient annoyance

  2. …that had bands such as Fall Out Boy and My Chemical Romance and survived?

    <

    p>And what about King Solomon? Solomon of “Marriage is a sacred bond between one man and 700 wives and 300 concubines” fame.  We see marriage re-written in the bible. [This is in addition to the changes Laurel as listed.  You know, the whole women as chattel aspect of marriage. Marriage as a way for men to transfer property (eg women) between one another.]

    • The ancient Israelites lost their country when they switched to the one-man, one woman system–they shoulda stuck with polygamy.

  3. Massachusetts holds the distinction of having one of the lowest rates of divorce in the nation.

    <

    p>”There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived.”

    <

    p>Hey, Huck Finn – tell it to your church.

    <

    p>Asshat.

      • We don’t bring up the subject of conception rights for same-sex couples here, so we can appreciatively participate in other discussions.  But, sometimes, the subject comes up here anyway, and so we can’t help noting that the subject of postgenderism and same-sex conception and marriage rights can be discussed on John Howard’s blog http://www.eggandsperm.org.

        <

        p>Thanks.

  5. Let’s think… before European influence, there were lots of open, gay relationships in China and they were among the greatest civilizations on earth. The relationships were viewed as noble, even, never mind just equal. Then the Europeans came in, bringing with them some of their homophobic viewpoints… and China went into a decline they’re still digging themselves out of. So, good thinking Huckabee…

    <

    p>Anywho, I hit up this topic on my blog yesterday. As I said then, the pillars of Massachusetts society still appear to be holding.

    <

    p>Mainly, however, I skipped the whole society-will-crumble nonsense and tackled one of the other things Huckabee said in the same interview.

    <

    p>

    GQ: I just wonder what you’d say to the gay couple who says, “Well, we want to live this way, and my partner can’t come visit me in a nursing home.”
    HUCKABEE: He can with a power of attorney. That’s the fallacy, that this requires some new definition of marriage. It’s simply not the case.

    <

    p>I’m just going to be lazy and say now what I said then, in response to that wingnuttery…

    <

    p>Did anyone ever bother to tell him how much that costs? After thousands of dollars, gay couples can have a tiny few of the same benefits of married couples, all the while “traditional” families merely need to pay for a marriage certificate. Furthermore, many states like Virginia have very onerous laws that prevent gay couples from creating legal agreements which could be construed, in any minute way, as being a couple. And let’s not even get started on health care benefits!

    <

    p>So, in some states, for the wealthiest and most privileged of gay couples, they can maybe, sort of have the privilege of visiting their partner in the hospital, but not actually be the provider of insurance that could cover the surgery their partner needs. And that’s supposed to be a good thing?

    <

    p>

    • and that power of attorney is worthless when
      1) you are not in the state where it was drawn up
      2) you don’t have it on you in the moment of need
      3) the doctor refuses to respect it and sends you scurrying for a judge.  then you hope your spouse hasn’t died before the (quite possible homophobic) court gets around to hearing your plea.

      <

      p>yeah, a power of atty is so great, huckabee divorced his wife and drew up a poa with her instead.  right huck?  right?  what an asshole.

      • First, no (1) is not necessarily the case. (2) and (3) are definite problems.

        <

        p>Second, I don’t know how it is at most hospitals, but Lahey Clinic has offered to put medical records, including medical PoAs, on line (with security, of course) so that they can be accessed anywhere in the world.

        • A power of attorney is intended as an instrument to deal with special cases when one person needs special authorization to act in place of another…it is absurd to require one to allow someone to visit his spouse in the hospital.

          • it is absurd to require one to allow someone to visit his spouse in the hospital.

            <

            p>Not a power of attorney.  To ensure visitation rights, the person(s) should execute a ‘hospital visitation authorization’.

            • … that must be secured for homosexual spouses that is already available by default to hetero spouses.  It isn’t clear that ‘civil unions’ would provide similar default status in all such cases where marital status can define the protocol.  Thats why ‘civil unions’ are not ‘equal’ to marriage.

              • Civil Unions could certainly provide all of these things to couples, and it could be made clear that for all purposes they were to be treated as, even referred to and spoken of, as marriages.  A person in a civil union would legally have to answer “yes” to the question “are you married” on every form or document, that would be a key part of every state’s Civil Union law.  And everyone would have to treat civil unions as marriages.

                <

                p>Not even marriage provides the same default status in all cases as heterosexual marriage.  For example, the federal government doesn’t recognize them, most states and countries don’t recognize them, and lots of private individuals, perhaps eve hospitals, don’t recognize them.  Civil unions could rectify most of these real disparities much better than insisting on marriage would.

                • … in such a way to make civil unions and marriage have distinction without difference, then there is no need for CUs at all and we should just let there be homosexual marriage.  The discussion becomes moot.

                  <

                  p>I’m still not convinced that were CU’s to be enacted in such a way that there wouldn’t be challenges brought up vis a vis marriage.  Even equivocating them with marriage still leaves it open for interpretation that presents challenge.  Just because they are two different terms this is likely, because in the legal world, when two things are referred to in two different terms, it begs the question ‘whats the difference’?  Once that comes up, someone will be compelled to come up with one.

                • But there should be a legal distinction, not just between marriages and civil unions, but between our rights generally with a man and our rights with a woman.  That’s why, since the couples should have different rights in one particular respect unique and essential to marriage, there needs to be different legal names.  But except for that one specific difference (which can be discussed here and should not be discussed here), they can be defined as being exactly like marriage.  By subtracting one essential right, all the other incidental rights get defined en mass much stronger than they would additively.

                • You can rationalize homophobia all you want, but it’s been said by far more intelligent people than you or I before: seperate is rarely, if ever, equal. Marriage equality does not hurt society, it only helps more people partake in it and not be sent off to the sidelines. Arguing for anything less is arguing for certain people to go to the back of the bus. No thanks.

                • Civil Unions could certainly provide all of these things to couples, and it could be made clear that for all purposes they were to be treated as, even referred to and spoken of, as marriages.  A person in a civil union would legally have to answer “yes” to the question “are you married” on every form or document, that would be a key part of every state’s Civil Union law.  And everyone would have to treat civil unions as marriages.

                  <

                  p>Surely it’s as clear as day to you that this would never happen.  The people who are opposed to acknowledging same-gender couples’ right to marry and suggest civil unions instead do so precisely because civil unions don’t automatically confer legally equal rights to marriage.1  Any attempts to pass civil unions (on a national scale, that is, which would be necessary in order to make sure they really were equal) which did grant fully equal rights to marriage would be met with storms of protest that this constituted a “backdoor” way of “redefining marriage.”

                  <

                  p>Which is why this:

                  Civil unions could rectify most of these real disparities much better than insisting on marriage would.

                  is just false.

                  <

                  p>1 Note that I’m talking here about the group of marriage equality opponents who are smart enough to see that overt discrimination is falling out of favor, and hope that by creating a “separate but equal” institution which is anything but equal, they can stop or at least delay the progress toward real equality.  This is emphatically not the same as the group of marriage equality supporters who think that civil unions, even if not fully equal, are better than what we have now, which in most states is nothing at all, and that they’re a more achievable goal that can be used as a stepping stone toward full equality — the former group are (perhaps cleverer-than-average) bigots, while the latter are making a pragmatic calculation (though one whose correctness I’m not convinced of.)

                • and Civil Unions could not only be enacted in all fifty states but also be recognized federally.  The distinction could be a federally mandated one, where the federal gov’t would recognize civil unions as marriages only if they were defined in a certain way, granting all the rights and obligations as marriage except a specific certain right, which should not be given to same-sex couples.

                • People can go so far out of their way to rationalize homophobia, keeping a certain group of people down and making sure they don’t have the privilege to partake in one of the fundamental institutions of this country (the right to marry the one you love) is offensive.

                  <

                  p>Doing anything that you’re suggesting is almost doomed to failure: people that support equal rights – you know, the decent human beings out there – won’t accept it. Scumbags opposed to equal rights aren’t going to willingly give it to them. In short, legalizing a national civil unions bill would face as much or more opposition than legalizing marriage equality.

                  <

                  p>However, none of those points are the important ones – they just show how it’s meaningless and stupid to try to legalize a national civil unions law as opposed to marriage equality.

                  <

                  p>What is important is this fact: if gays and lesbians deserve equal rights before the law, why go out of the way to deny them the title that equality ought to bestow? What harm would it do? I’m honestly curious: if you want equal rights for gays and lesbians, what harm could come from giving them full marriage equality?

              • POA, right of visitation, right of remains, health care proxy,   living will, regular will, …

                <

                p>I used to travel back and forth to India for work.  My partner and I ended up with 8 or 9 separate documents just to ensure he had rights if something happened.

    • As far as I can tell, their favorite example is the collapse of the Roman Empire. The simplified history for them is that debauchery took over and so it collapsed.

      • Because it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with overextending their military trying to conquer foreign lands for their resources.

        <

        p>Hey, wait, that sounds vaguely familiar…..

      • This is a biblical notion more than a historical one.

        <

        p>The Old Testament is filled with stories of cities or civilizations that tolerated certain forms of sexual behavior that Hebrew civilization did not, and were accordingly conquered by the Hebrews, or smitten by the wrath of God.  Sodom and Gommorah are two well known examples of such stories.  Also Canaanites, Philistines, etc.  When the northern Hebew Kingdom (Israel)became excessively tolerant of such behavior, it was annihilated by Assyria as a consequence.  When the southern kingdom (Judea) follwed suit, it was conquered by Babylon as a consequence.

        <

        p>This is the fundamental reason that fundamentist (meaning, those who accept the entire canonical Bible as inerrant and literal truth) are impervious to the “mind your own damn business” argument.  Why, says you, should anyone give two shaving cream cans who I marry, or with whom I chose to engage in certain activities in the privacy of my home?  If they are opposed to such activities, they are free to refrain from them, and to mind their own damn business.

        <

        p>They are impervious to this line of argument, as has been amply demonstrated.  That is because they view the existence of such behavior in our nation to be a direct physical threat to the nation and to all of its inhabitants, and to threaten them, individually, with eternal damnation.  (Much of the Old Testament draws no distinction between individual and collective responsibility for sins.)

        <

        p>The fall of the Roman Empire thus falls into an already established pattern.

        <

        p>Those of us who accept the Scriptures as allegory that comes from a particular time and place, are left to wonder why these so-called Christians favor the Old Testament and the Revelation over the Gospels, which one presumes they believe to be the inerrant recording of the teachings of Christ.

        • i guess it never crossed their blessed minds that the israelites got smashed by their neighbors because they had also been smashing their own neighbors.  nah.  it’s much easier to blame it on the sins of the neighbors that surreptitiously seeped into the land of the one true god.

          • Bear in mind that they believe the canonical scripture to be absolutely inerrant, and that is what those scriptures say.  That is the end of the analysis, as far as they are concerned.

            • What astounds me is comparing this to how an educated person might approach the study of Aristotle or Seneca. No one, just no one studying Aristotle or Seneca would read them and no other ancient Greek or Latin author. On the face of it, that’s absurd. How would one understand the context? How would one understand the concerns?

              <

              p>Yet Christian scripture exists in exactly such a vacuum. The idea of basing one’s life on the New Testament without at least thinking about Josephus’ contemporary history is like basing one’s life on Aristotle without reading Plato.

              <

              p>The inerrancy model certainly encourages that.

              • Indeed the “method” of scriptural interpretation that stands opposed to “literalism” is called “contextualism.”

                <

                p>We would be a hell of a lot better off if the fundamentalists based their lives strictly on the New Testament.  Jesus was a damn near a hippie, after all, with all of the sick caring, poor loving, sin forgiving, bad company keeping, and judge notting.  Not to mention the wine.

                <

                p>It’s the pissy, insecure, jealous God of the Old Testament– formulated when the Hebrews were trying to forge a cultural idendity for themselves in a world that constantly threatened to swallow and absorb that identity whole– that vexes us today.

            • I am not at all sure that “1/3” of the country falls into the category of “fundamentalist” as I have defined it (believers that the canonical scripture are absolutely inerrant and lieterally true).  Obviously, with these people, there is no compromise possible.

              <

              p>Im am relatively certain that this extreme position remains a small subset of self-described Christians in the US.  I believe that the larger figures quoted elsewhere in this blog, and from scare surveys reported in the NYT, refer to evangelicals, rather then fundamentalists.  The two terms may overlap, but describe discrete populations.

              <

              p>Though doubtless very much a social convervative, the evangelical is not necessarily impervious to arguments that certain “biblical” rules are unjust, and that God does not tolerate injustice.  They probably need to be acclimated to certain things previously considered taboo and alien, and over time, will be.

              <

              p>The problem has been that the person arguing against the “fundamentalist” position makes no such distinction, and attacks all with the same hyper-provocative tactics–see the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, et al.

              <

              p>In my view this approach, while doubtless cathartic for the activist, is profoundly counter-productive, because it makes a monolith out of a significant chunk of the population that need not be monolithic.

              <

              p>In this respect the development you noted elsewhere regarding environmental activism may be, over time, very fruitful, even if it produces no immediate dividends on the marriage front.

              • Wikipedia notes (I know, not an authoritative source) that a common thread amongst Evangelical Christians is their belief in Bible inerrancy.

                <

                p>In June Gallup poll titled “Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution”, pollsters as ask people if they subscribe to evolution or creationism.

                <

                p>

                A. Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life: Definitely true 18%.

                B. Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years: Definitely true – 39%

                <

                p>I think it’s safe to say that a strong majority of the 39% are creationists because of belief in Bible inerrancy.

                <

                p>In this Baylor Survey 38% of Americans say “The Bible is perfectly true but not literal” and 19% say “The Bible should be taken literally, word for word.”(Q 55). The data here is extensive.

                <

                p>This all supplements my earlier, more extensive comment.

                <

                p>Make of all the linked data what you will.  To me, it is safe to say that 33% of the US is fundamentalist Christian.  Your definition of fundamentalism may vary.  

        • <

          p>The Old Testament is filled with stories of cities or civilizations that tolerated certain forms of sexual behavior that Hebrew civilization did not, and were accordingly conquered by the Hebrews, or smitten by the wrath of God.  Sodom and Gommorah are two well known examples of such stories.

          <

          p>You might actually wish to read your Wholly Babble.  If you did, you would learn that the sin of Sodom was that they were haughty (one of the things that Psalms states that the Lord hates),  and that they refused to share their abundance with the poor

          <

          p>16:49 “‘See here – this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had majesty, abundance of food, and enjoyed carefree ease, but they did not help the poor and needy.

          <

          p>That was the sin of Sodom.

          • Not surprising from someone who cannot spell the name of the book.

            <

            p>Lot and family stay at the home of a resident of Sodom, and the men of the town press at the gates of the house, demanding that the owner send out them men who came in, “so we may know them.”

            <

            p>In this sense the verb “to know” is used in the biblical sense.

            <

            p>Whereupon the smiting starts.

            • you’re both right.

              <

              p>It depends on whose version of the book you read, and where you place your emphasis.

            • In this sense the verb “to know” is used in the biblical sense.

              <

              p>being what?

              <

              p>BTW, I spelled “therefor” correctly.

                • can read, and we know that “to know” did not necessarily (or even usually) have a sexual connotation.  The local Sodomites were suspicious of strangers (as would be expected) and wanted to “know” them.  I.e., interrogate them.

                  <

                  p>Do some rooting around among John Boswell’s works.

                • …there are ways of making that clear

                  <

                  p>”as far as I can tell”

                  <

                  p>”others have opined”

                  <

                  p>are just two of them.

                • So I don’t have a strong position of the “correct” reading of the Sodom & Gomorrah story, though what little I do know supports the idea that on the one hand the townsfolk were pretty eager to have sex with Lot’s mysterious guests, but on the other hand there were a whole bunch of reasons the city was put to the torch.

                  <

                  p>Mostly I’m amused at the notion that there’s a true “Biblical sense” of the English verb “to know” over which to argue.  I have no idea what the word used in ancient Greek or ancient Hebrew (see, you can tell I’m not a Biblical scholar) would have been, or what the best translation into modern English would be, but surely (since I’m guessing this particular phrasing comes from the KJV) the way one can know whether “to know” means “to screw” in this passage by finding out whether in similar contexts it usually meant that in early 17th-century England?  That’s not necessarily information one should be expected to be able readily to call up from the depths of one’s brain, but it’s also probably not terribly difficult to check.

            • The greater sin at that place and time would have been not protecting one’s guests.  After Lot refuses the strangers the opportunity to “know” his guests, he then points out that he has two virgin daughters whom the strangers are more than welcome to basically rape.  Do we really want to go along with this idea of morality?

              • He is not arguing that any of this represents his morality or a good morality. See his comments elsewhere on nation formation.

        • The Christian interpretation of S&G is that of sexual deviance causing the wrath of God.  However, the Jewish interpretation is that the folks of S&G were committing a huge list of sins, of which sexual deviance was one relatively uninteresting item on the list.  For Jews, the lack of hospitality in S&G was a major issue, as was their treatment of the poor.

          <

          p>The details and the points of emphasis vary widely based on just whose book you’re reading.  Of course, the GOP candidates [and their supporters] are largely reading the King James or some other translated Christian Bible, and tend to support the emphasis on sexuality for S&G.

          • The Jewish interpretation of that particular passage is not releavant to its interpretation by so-called fundamentalist Christians.

            <

            p>Also, I’m not sure that is entirely fair to say that all Christians view the story of S&G to be a warning about incurring God’s wrath through sexual deviance.

            <

            p>It is fair to say that about certain subsets of all Christians.

          • The Bible is strangely silent too as to the reason for the flood. Whose wickedness exactly caused it? Very vague. An interpretative tradition grew up around the flood to explain this. (Reference: James L. Kugel, The Bible As It Was, Belknap Press, 1997, pp 97ff)

            <

            p>Kugel fills a whole book with ways in which almost everyone now reads the Old Testament/Hebrew Scripture and supplies a standard, but extra-textual interpretation. American fundamentalists and American Baptists have their own very definite traditions of interpretation.

            • It’s an adaptation of a Chaldean myth.

              <

              p>See A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by ANDREW DICKSON WHITE
              LL.D. (Yale), L.H.D. (Columbia), PH.DR. (Jena)
              Late President and Professor of History at Cornell University               Chapter V, section 3  http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crs…

      • <

        p>…did not occur until the 15th century CE, with the downfall of Constantinople.  From what I have read, Gibbons attributes the collapse of the Western empire to the Romans’ taking of Christianity as their state religion.

          • raj provides footnotes. For example, you will find that there is a standard Nietzsche footnote one can expect for every mention of Nietzsche — whether relevant or not.

            • The discussion (aside from the footnotes) was not about history but about the uses of history.  

              • …the uses of history are no better than the correct interpretation of the history.

                <

                p>Your point being what?

                • I was trying to explain to you the comment marked “CentralMassDad @ Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 15:26:26 PM EST” but I now surrender. You’re not even trying to understand me. It doesn’t matter.

                  <

                  p>I conclude that you cannot follow conversations. I should just accept this. I should stop trying to explain relevance and lack of relevance to you. It’s futile. You’re convinced you’re smarter than me and so anything I say is ipso facto wrong. I give up.

                  [Attempting to fall in with the footnote style.]

                  <

                  p>Yes, how very interesting about the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottomans! Do you own any Ottomans or do you avoid footstools? This is conversation is byzantine isn’t it? What do you think of the Ottoman alliance with the Central Powers in World War I? Have you heard the music Donizetti wrote for them? Did you know how about how croissants were first invented? (Hint: it had to do with the siege of Vienna.)

                • Your efforts are appreciated.

                  <

                  p>I have noted before that raj is alternately right-on-target or a isufferable pedant.  

                  <

                  p>Yesterday, regarding Kelo, he was the former, and in this thread he has not.

                  <

                  p>I suppose he marches to the beat of his own drummer, and on some days that drummer only plays the theremin.

                • …I will henceforth cease providing citations that support my assertions of fact.  I note that others over the Internet rarely do.

                  <

                  p>One of the things that you might want to consider is that, what you refer to as pedantry, I refer to as “cross examination.”  As Perry Mason (books written by a lawyer) would tell you, it is via cross-examination that the facts are revealed.

                  <

                  p>It is very difficult to follow a “conversation” in a lengthy thread where the only indication of a “conversation” is indentation.

                • Alrwady on the list.

                  <

                  p>Yesterday, you appeared to contend that to the “fundamentalist Christian,” self-described, Genesis 19 is not interpreted as a warning about sexual mores.

                  <

                  p>Or, you argued that it can be interpreted otherwise, which is a non sequitor because the topic at hand was the most extreme fringe of so-called Christian Americans.

                  <

                  p>If Perry Mason conducted his cross examinations in such a manner, the name of the series would have been Hamilton Burger

                • I think the argument you are making is too abstract (yes, abstract) for raj to follow. Statements of fact, he follows. The need to note what might be overlooked or what widely held assertion might be wrong, he gets. Descriptions of someone else’s ideology, world view, or theology, he does not. In fairness to him, that may be because he doesn’t particularly care about such matters. Subtlety is not something one takes to the “Wholly Babble”.

                  <

                  p>Shorter version: This really is futile.

                • Well, since you don’t appear to know how to do HTML links — or all the links are in the country you’re now currently from — or were come upon long ago and hence not provided, your promise to stop citing rings hollow.

                  <

                  p>You rarely support your assertions with citations.

                • Well, since you don’t appear to know how to do HTML links

                  <

                  p>…I do.  I even have a Notebook file for templates for HTML linkages.  You know, the “(angle bracket)a ref” bit etc..  But it’s largely a waste of time to bother doing that here.  So, I just copy the URL iteslf into my comments.

                  <

                  p>It works just as nice as doing the “a ref” bit.  And, the links may not look as elegant as you might like.  But it gets you to the same place.

      • Rome became decadent very early in the Empire but still managed to last several hundred years after that.

        • The Roman patricians were decadent decades if not centuries befor the Empire.  After Augustus(!) established the empire, the patricians who ruled Rome veyed against each other, and ensured that the emperors would go completely downhill.  There were a couple of exceptions, but very few.  Constantine was one of the better ones, but, recall that he was the one who jettisoned the Western portion of the empire.

  7. Every society up until the post-Reformation period in Europe had no official legal standing for marriages. Marriages were considered fully within the sacramental realm of the church. After the Reformation and the Enlightenment notions of property rights began to define marriages as a kind of civil contract. Even in the US neither states nor the federal government had the authority to sanctify a marriage or even choose whether or not to grant the licenses. Essentially anyone who co-habitated with someone else for five years was considered common law married and the state also recognized the marriages performed by churches.

    <

    p>It was only when whites and blacks started getting married that states stepped in to ban certain kinds of marriage and require that a couple get a “license” to wed. Ideally I would say I oppose gay marriage in the sense that I oppose any kind of civil marriage and do not believe the state has the authority to grant marriage licenses, rather when consenting adults live with each other for a period of time they have a right to share property and the state should recognize their rights instead of granting them rights.

    <

    p>That said I fully support gay marriage as a policy since its pragmatically the easiest way to allow gays to have their God given property rights, but philosophically the current system is flawed and we should go back to the way it was in the 1890s before racist laws screwed everything up.  

    • <

      p>Every society up until the post-Reformation period in Europe had no official legal standing for marriages. Marriages were considered fully within the sacramental realm of the church.

      <

      p>I guess it depends on what you mean by “the church,” (and I don’t know how it was in the Near Eastern rites) but the RCCi (Roman Catholic Church, Inc.) did not have control over marriage until sometime over the end of the 1st millenium CE.  And they wrested control from the secular as part of a disagreement with the secular government.  

      <

      p>Before that, marriage very much had an official legal standing: it defined legal obligations of the spouses to one another, rights of inheritance, and legitimacy of children.  It is a rather serious mistake to believe that marriage had no official legal standing before the RCCi took it over.  

      <

      p>The difference, that you may be overlooking, is that marriage had been generally similar to “common law marriage.”  Common law marriage is still available in some states of the US, but the difficulty of proving that a marriage existed led many states to outlaw it in favor of state registration.

      • I loved the cannons in the Telarc recordings of the Cincinnati Pops Orchestra* in the early 1980s.  The recordings were reputed to have destroyed more than a few speakers.

        <

        p>On a serious note, we have a series of books in our home library collectively entitled A History of Private Life that goes into it in exquisite detail.  I believe that they are translations from the French.

        <

        p>As far as I can tell–and I haven’t run an exhaustive analysis on the subject–what passes for “traditional marriage” is not Judaic marriage.  It is Greek and Roman.  The rites might have changed, but the rights haven’t.

        <

        p>*from which Kieth Lockhart came.

    • Civil Marriage has a long tradition in this country – it came here along with some of the first colonizers, Puritans. Puritans made sure that marriage was a civil – and not religious – contract. Feel free to try again.

  8. <

    p>I want to have the right to have 700 wives and 300 concubines, like–who was it?–King David.

    <

    p>I don’t know what I’d do with them if I had them.  But if Huck wants to have traditional marriage, he should support my right to have them.

    <

    p>/sarcasm.  

Archives