"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

[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.