"Mawwidge..."

[unixronin]

"The sanctity of marriage", unfortunately for the homophobic, turns out to be a bit like the purity of the English language¹:

In the 21st Century, we've heard a lot about the sanctity of marriage, as if that were something that has been around forever, but in reality the phrase was invented in 2004.  Google it for yourself and see if you can find a single reference to the "sanctity of marriage" before the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions in that state.  The proverbial Sanctity of Marriage sprang into being because opponents of gay marriage needed a logical reason to overturn an established legal precedent.  And the only thing that trumps the Constitution is God himself.

An excellent article explaining that virtually everything we associate with marriage today dates back to at most the Victorian era.  Historically speaking, the "holy sacrament of marriage" that the religious-and-homophobic² use to explain why they should be allowed to dictate who may and may not marry simply doesn't exist.

The closing statement, in particular, is made of pure win.

[1]  "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore.  We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." — James D. Nicoll

[2]  Let there be no misunderstanding:  I am ABSOLUTELY NOT equating religion with homophobia here.  I'm saying that the "sanctity of marriage" argument is the almost exclusive province of those who are both religious and homophobic.

Comments

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

In Western government, state control of marriage goes back to the origins of the nanny state - that is, to the poor relief in 1500s England and France, where the Church parish was the empowered, funded, structural authority for distribution of relief once the nobility begged off on their historical obligations to tenants. This was especially the case in England where there was a concerted attempt to stamp out the "old Church," "country religion" and Church of England outliers (which would quite some time later be codified into categories of outlier). These notions of church and state survived into the colonies in various forms - ranging from explicit adoption and enforcement thereof (MA) to explicit rejection with state enforcement thereof (RI&PP). The more the state grew and had functions affecting or involving family matters, the more the distinctions and control grew. And - perhaps because it had become so intertwined in the fabric of the state - it managed to survive the 14th Amendment incorporation-finding period of the early 20th C.

History's a bear. :)

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

I stopped reading after about 5 or 6 paragraphs, since the author doesn't appear to know the difference between a 'wedding' and a 'marriage'. Does it get less stupid?

Having said that, the idea from the above paragraph is equally silly, since the entire notion of gay marriage was laughable across the entire political spectrum for most of my life time (and I'm not *that* old. Go back to the arguments over the ERA as late as 1979. One argument against the ERA was that the wording would allow gay marriage. This was laughed off and insanely ridiculous fear mongering, since the very notion of it was so stupid). That the terminology to argue about it is relatively recent is a completely spurious argument.

Surely we can do better than this...

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-appears-to.html

As recently as 1998, over 70% were opposed to it with just over 10% in favor. Shockingly there wasn't much arguing about it back then...

[lebo-superman.livejournal.com]

Are you on aisling 's friends list? You should see what she had to say on this subject yesterday! Synchronicity!

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I agree entirely. Let the churches have complete say over whom they will or will not "marry", but let it carry NO CIVIL WEIGHT WHATSOEVER. Let civil unions be the only union recognized for official purposes for things like beneficiaries, family coverage etc, extend it to everyone regardless of race, color, sexual identity, or even number of partners in the union, and let the churches have NO SAY IN IT WHATSOEVER. Right now, the way I see it, churches want to have their cake and eat it, and they've had that for about a thousand years too long.