I hear tell that there are anti-gay (usually anti-marriage) initiatives and referenda on the ballot in eleven states.
I also hear that every one of them is currently expected to pass.
That makes me very, very sad.
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
In Michigan Proposal 2 was to amend the state constitution to narrow the definition of marraige. I voted no. It didn't get much publicity and not much organized opposition.
There was a huge amount of publicity on both sides concerning Proposal A. this involved giving the taxpayers the right to choose on various gambling operations including additions to the state lottery, race track betting and Indian casinos. The Governor opposed it (and I liked her) and unfortunately the supporters came off as racist in their opposition to the Indian owned casinos. But I still voted for it. I'm pretty much in favor of giving taxpayers a choice on things.
There were a bunch of minor races for representatives and board of ed and courts and things. I rarely vote a straight ticket - I usually mix it up and vote for Libertarian, Green, Marxist, or whoever has a latino name or the woman. This time I went straight Dem, hoping to send a message.
What is marriage, but a religiously-defined status? Without religion, would marriage exist? Does it have a purpose beyond the religions that brought it such popularity?
I guess the bottom line is this: separation of church and state. Perhaps there should be a complete removal of the government's involvement in marriage altogether!
Marriage is a social institution which exists in all cultures regardless of religion.
The early Christian church was hostile to the institution (they felt it might lead to concupiscence and worse yet, procreation). People still got married, of course, under the good old pagan common law, and eventually the churtch began, grudgingly, to perform marriages.
Later, of course, they decided they needed to have a monopoly on it, and got laws passed in some states refusing to recognize common-law marriages, Jewish marriages, &c. This is still a sore spot for some Quakers.
And that's not even getting into the appalling history regarding recognizing legal relationships between slaves, interracial marriages, &c.
So the answer to your original question is, no, marriage is not a religious institution and ten times over is not a Christian institution. Quite frankly, if other people want to get married, in whatever combinations and under whatever mutual agreements, it's none of your damn business.
Christianity has never looked at marriage as a perversion, nor did it come as a way of conforming to Pagan beliefs... right down to the earliest teachings (i.e. the New Testament), marriage is present in discussion and considered a very positive thing.
If you go back to what started the whole marriage thing, you will find religion. I'm not claiming it for Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion. The fact that these religions can all agree (along with Islam) that marriage should be restricted to male-female is a significant miracle in itself!
Well, we can start with 1 Corinthians 7: 25-31, 36-40, when it comes to the early Church's attitude towards marriage.
Or, if we really want to be gruesome about it, Matthew 19:12.
The early fathers of the Church, of course, presumed that the world would end quite soon, and that there was no need to be concerned about providing a new generation, or even much reason to be concerned about earning a living.
I'm not sure where you came up with a reference to "perversion", unless you are unclear on the definition of "concupiscence" . . . ?
Getting back to the original subject, I have to say that the passage last month of all eleven anti-gay, anti-marriage, anti-family ballot measures leaves me very, very sad. Please excuse me for saying that I think no decent person should feel anything but sorrow at this turn of events.
6 comments:
In Michigan Proposal 2 was to amend
the state constitution to narrow the definition of marraige. I voted no.
It didn't get much publicity and not much organized opposition.
There was a huge amount of publicity on both sides concerning Proposal A. this
involved giving the taxpayers the right to choose on various gambling operations
including additions to the state lottery, race track betting and Indian casinos.
The Governor opposed it (and I liked her) and unfortunately the supporters came
off as racist in their opposition to the Indian owned casinos. But I still voted
for it. I'm pretty much in favor of giving taxpayers a choice on things.
There were a bunch of minor races for representatives and board of ed and courts
and things. I rarely vote a straight ticket - I usually mix it up and vote for
Libertarian, Green, Marxist, or whoever has a latino name or the woman. This
time I went straight Dem, hoping to send a message.
Oh, and I voted "No" on proposal W.
-- Randall Hugh Crawford
What is marriage, but a religiously-defined status? Without religion, would marriage exist? Does it have a purpose beyond the religions that brought it such popularity?
I guess the bottom line is this: separation of church and state. Perhaps there should be a complete removal of the government's involvement in marriage altogether!
-kb
Marriage is a social institution which exists in all cultures regardless of religion.
The early Christian church was hostile to the institution (they felt it might lead to concupiscence and worse yet, procreation). People still got married, of course, under the good old pagan common law, and eventually the churtch began, grudgingly, to perform marriages.
Later, of course, they decided they needed to have a monopoly on it, and got laws passed in some states refusing to recognize common-law marriages, Jewish marriages, &c. This is still a sore spot for some Quakers.
And that's not even getting into the appalling history regarding recognizing legal relationships between slaves, interracial marriages, &c.
So the answer to your original question is, no, marriage is not a religious institution and ten times over is not a Christian institution. Quite frankly, if other people want to get married, in whatever combinations and under whatever mutual agreements, it's none of your damn business.
John: check your facts.
Christianity has never looked at marriage as a perversion, nor did it come as a way of conforming to Pagan beliefs... right down to the earliest teachings (i.e. the New Testament), marriage is present in discussion and considered a very positive thing.
If you go back to what started the whole marriage thing, you will find religion. I'm not claiming it for Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion. The fact that these religions can all agree (along with Islam) that marriage should be restricted to male-female is a significant miracle in itself!
-kb
Well, we can start with 1 Corinthians 7: 25-31, 36-40, when it comes to the early Church's attitude towards marriage.
Or, if we really want to be gruesome about it, Matthew 19:12.
The early fathers of the Church, of course, presumed that the world would end quite soon, and that there was no need to be concerned about providing a new generation, or even much reason to be concerned about earning a living.
I'm not sure where you came up with a reference to "perversion", unless you are unclear on the definition of "concupiscence" . . . ?
Getting back to the original subject, I have to say that the passage last month of all eleven anti-gay, anti-marriage, anti-family ballot measures leaves me very, very sad. Please excuse me for saying that I think no decent person should feel anything but sorrow at this turn of events.
Post a Comment