Thers has a little piece up that I meant to link to the other day, commenting on some Clown Hall piece on the decline of the sanctity of bedrock institutions like marriage [or something equally convoluted], written by a wingnut called Ken Connor. Here is a snippet of the annoying piece, just to give you a taste of what it is that Thers is making fun of:
[blah blah blah fart] precipitous decline of marriage. What was once venerated as a holy, sacramental institution is now considered an optional, if slightly outmoded social convention, a stultifying but necessary financial convenience. This week’s Washington Post illustrates that proposition. In a recent article, the Post discusses the increasing number of couples opting to have a friend rather then a religious officiant preside over their wedding ceremonies.
Seeking to distance themselves from any prescriptive religious connotations that may cling to marriage, self-proclaimed “hippy types” are redefining the institution along highly personalized, pseudo-spiritual, distinctly non-sacramental lines. From the article:
“Members of the American University crew shared a love of jam bands, including Phish and Moe, as well as a passion for environmentalism and nature. Their wedding ceremonies often reflected those interests.
Some of them talked about vigorously scrubbing the word “God” from their rituals; instead readings came from environmental poet Wendell Berry or novels, such as “Einstein’s Dreams,” which explores human beings’ relationship to time passing.”
It’s that whole “venerated as a holy, sacramental institution” and this part that comes after it, about glue or something, that is annoying Thers:
Traditional marriage (specifically, Christian marriage) has through the centuries served as a critical civilizing force in society. It has been, quite literally, the glue that holds communities and peoples together. As traditionally understood, the bonds of marriage are forged not by man, but by God. They are not merely legal, physical, or emotional, they are spiritual and sacred.
Yeah, so Thers is straight and married and here is what he has to say about that:
That’s precisely why gays want to get married. Steve says to Bill, “before all our loved ones, please let’s together forever participate in what was once venerated as a holy, sacramental institution that is now considered an optional, if slightly outmoded social convention, a stultifying but necessary financial convenience, you sweet bitch you.”
Anyway, I’m straight, and not religious, and I’m pretty sure I got married because of the love thing, and also because I was pretty sure I would like being married and having kids.
[...]
There’s no mystery as to why God-botherers want us all to hold to 14th century social norms: it’s good to be the priest.
But as for me — stop bugging me. I’m a straight married guy. Whatever. Stop trying to call what I have some sort of Spiritual and Sacred hot-shit win for Mankind. It’s not. It’s just what I am.
I’ve often thought that the weird way that Religious Right characters talk about marriage — this up in the clouds, sanctified bedrock blah blah blah crap — was more than a little bit unhinged from the reality of married life for the average American. It’s good to know that their weird rhetoric on the topic creeps out opposite-married people too.
You’ll want to head over to Thers’s blog and read the rest of his post, because there’s a whole riff in there about glue holding people together that you won’t want to miss. I’d quote it here, but y’know. It includes the phrase “sticky nipples.”
You had me at “Sticky nipples”.
The RR’s are also having fits over the fact that we seculars are growing in numbers, generally from their ranks. The trend for the younger generations to be far less religious and homophobic. I’m hoping that we’ll get to see some of the old time RR’s experience some serious head explosions.
PS Ken Connor was one time head of the FRC before KKK list buyer Tony Perkins. James Dobson had him replaced with Perkins.
What annoys me the most about this argument is it’s just flat-out bad history. Obviously marriage predates the Church, and for about 1000 years the Church had zero interest in getting involved in it. Marriage did not become “Christian” until the Middle Ages. Pagans in Europe considered marriage to be arrangements between families and governed by villages and tribes (AKA the “government” of the time), and didn’t involve their pagan religions in it. Even after the rise of Christianity, many Christians had traditional “pagan” ceremonies because there *wasn’t* a such thing as a “Christian” marriage. A priest could marry you, but the higher Church didn’t really care too much about who you married or why or governing what you did once you were. Marriage was mostly (GASP!) a *financial* decision and a way to build alliances (of loyalty, money, and power) between families and manage paternity and inheritance (AKA keep money in the family and protect kids born in wedlock, which of course today could be applied to the children of gay couples). So the terrible thing that these people are claiming marriage has turned into? A legal contract intended to be about money, personal relationships, and sometimes children rather than God? THAT’S “traditional” marriage.
Jennifer has lots of good things to say. Priests were not originally involved in marriages and marriages were not considered to be a sacrament for centuries. Also, the marriages priests were initially involved with were those of rich people. They were sometimes asked to bless those marriages. In the Roman church, it is the couple who marries each other. The priest is just an official witness. In the Roman church, it is the couple who confer the sacrament on each other, and if they never have sex (consummate the marriage), it can be annulled. Bishops didn’t have anything to say about marriage law till the Roman empire was crumbling and they were the only ones who had the ability to step in to provide some kind of civil order. Until then, civil officials made up what laws there were. But then truth and history are never strong suits of homophobes who prefer fairy tales.
Jennifer that is AWESOME!!!
If heterosexuals are having problems with an institution that fails about 50% of the time, they need to take personal responsiblity for their own failings and problems. Leave us out of the mud-slinging! Our desire to take part in this institution would only strengthen it.
I am glad to see that straights are, more and more, seeing through the whole “sanctity of marriage” charade. Suu-u-u-u-u-ure. That’s why there is a 50%+ divorce rate in this country. My husband and I have our spats as married couples do but we are committed to staying together “until death us do part”.
In parts of rural and Pagan Europe in the ‘old days’ couples were considered married by simply holding hands and jumping over a broom; a symbol of domesticity. African-Americans also adopted this practice in the antebellum South. A few years ago an African-American wedding planner book came out called Jumping the Broom.
while other commenters follow in his footsteps with sophisticated posts like these: “I would not be surprised if ‘Mein Kampf’ were to be found on his nightstand.” (This was followed by other comments too vulgar to print.) What a delightful, thoughtful bunch!
That was my comment! Sooo glad to know that this hateful imbecile knows what I think of him.
Ken Connor: “As traditionally understood, the bonds of marriage are forged not by man, but by God.”
If that is true, then why do nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce, even among religious fanatics? Are all of those divorces part of God’s perfect plan?