defense of marriage
The Christian Right and the Sanctity of Marriage
As we all know, the Christian Right has now made defense of the institution of marriage, as defined as a union of a man and woman, not only its top political priority, but the very touchstone of Christian moral responsibility.
I’ve always found this rather ironic, since the Protestant Reformation, to which most Christian Right leaders continue to swear fealty, made one of its own touchstones the derogation of marriage as a purely religious, as opposed to civic, obligation. Virtually all of the leaders of the Reformation denounced the idea of marriage as a scripturally-sanctioned church sacrament, holding that baptism and the Eucharist were the only valid sacraments. Luther called marriage “a secular and outward thing,”which he did not mean as a compliment. Calvin treated marriage as a “union of pious persons,” and while he did consider marriage a “covenant,” he used the same term for virtually every significant human relationship.
More tellingly, throughout Protestant Europe, from the earliest days, one of the most common “reforms” was the liberalization of divorce laws. And even today, in America, conservative Protestants have the highest divorce rates of any faith community, or un-faith community.
My point is not to accuse today’s conservative Christians of hypocrisy, though there’s room for that; it’s that the Christian Right has made a habit of confusing secular cultural conservatism–the simple and understandable impulse to resist unsettling change–with fidelity to their own religious traditions. “Defending marriage” is far down the list of concerns, historically, of the Reformation tradition, and indeed, that tradition has done far more to loosen the bonds of matrimony, for good or for ill, and to “de-sanctify” the institution, than all the gays and lesbians who have ever lived.
— NewDonkey.com 11/19 [link from mike]
algorithmically similar posts:
» Who doesn’t care about political hypocrisy, 2006-10-21 (score:19)» gayness, 2006-06-09 (score:17)
» same-sex marriage decisions, 2004-10-06 (score:17)
» Dan Savage on Marriage, 2004-07-17 (score:15)
December 3rd, 2004 at 12:04 pm
The Christian Right and the Sanctity of Marriage
lquilter.net pointed me to an interesting entry at NewDonkey:
The Christian Right and the Sanctity of Marriage
As we all know, the Christian Right has now made defense of the institution of
May 16th, 2008 at 2:30 am
I write with both joy and sadness. Joy that California has paved the way for overturning DOMA which was instigated by the religious right and fallacious minded Christians of the Arizona Southern Baptist and Roman Catholic Churches who claim that the only reason to get married is to have children. Well many people get married for other reasons and many simply do not want children because they complicate their careers, any future divorces and they are very expensive in the long run OR they want children but can not biologically have them.
We can not rejoice for long as these mean spirted folks seem to think it is their right to impose their traditional religious vales on us and have they boasted to me gathered 1-million signatures to be placed on the ballot to change the California Constitution. I would like to know why they are really doing this other than they must be fascists? Unless they have a gay child they are not affected at all. When gay people can get married in all 50 states and territories—life will go on as it did the day before—we have seen this in Spain, Canada etc. DOMA is unconstitutional because it voids the equality clause of the Constitution and sets up a special class of priviledged people—heterosexuals. It also rings of Plessy vs Fergusson which in the 1890s the Supreame Court ruled that Separate but Equal was ok. Well we found out that was not true and about 1956; this rule was reversed thanks to a future Supreame Court Justice back then. Same sex marriage is not equal. Marriage confers upon the individuals forming the couple—over 1000 benefits and rights whereas the so-called ‘domestic partnerships’ or ‘civil union’ only barely confers any rights if any.
Only fascists and nazi’s would want to tell one who one can marry and can not marry. Marriage is a basic human right and should be available to anyone who wishes to. In the cases of homophobic religious institutions; they should not be forced into marrying anyone if they choose not to. The State needs to get out of bed wth the Church and cease using the Church to do the legal work of marriage. Instead, as in France, if you want to get married you have to do this at the license bureau or the Mayors office—only then are you married. If you have a church wedding —it is not a legal wedding. However, if you first get married at the Mayors Office or license bureau and desire religious recognition then you certainly may have a religious ceremony after coming from the Mayors office and the church agrees to. That is the way it should be here in the US.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Errata to above
(1)”We can not rejoice for long as these mean spirted folks seem to think it is their right to impose their traditional religious vales on us and have they boasted to me”
should read “We can not rejoice for long as these mean spirted folks seem to think it is their right to impose their traditional religious values on us and have they boasted to me
(2)”and have they boasted to me gathered 1-million signatures to be placed on the ballot to change the California Constitution.” Should read “and have they boasted to me that they have gathered 1-million signatures to be placed on the ballot to change the California Constitution.”
(3)”Unless they have a gay child they are not affected at all. ” INSERT —then they will have an new son or daughter in law.”
(4)”Same sex marriage is not equal.” Should read Domestic Partnerships and Civil union parading as the equivalent of Marriage is not equal.”
(5)”Marriage is a basic human right and should be available to anyone who wishes to”. Should read “Marriage is a basic human right and should be available to anyone who wishes to irrespective of gender, race, sexual orientation, national or geographic origin. INSERT however arranged marriages and forced marriages are to be condemned since the parties may not have agreed or could not agree to such a relationship as young infants or children”.