Marriage Denied

I would like to point you in the direction of a brief article that takes a different tack on the marriage issue.

It is brilliant in it’s simplicity, and makes a cogent point easy to understand.

It can be found at http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/sexandgender/755/.

Enjoy the chuckle, but give serious thought to the implications.

4 Responses to “Marriage Denied”

  1. February 1, 2009 at 8:35 AM

    I read it. It would have been funny if it had been more than the bitter whining of someone who lives outside the normative bounds of American society complaining about how they’re not accepted and condoned.

    Of course we’re going to continue to have this sort of issue as long as we allow our secular government to violate the US Constitution and interfere with the free exercise of religion by getting itself involved in the sacrament of marriage.

  2. 2 Rev Andy Little
    February 1, 2009 at 9:11 AM

    Last point, first. Marriage has always been a secular institution. It came about in the early part of the second millenium as a legal way for the church to control the matings of influential families. Marriages are recognized by states, who give the licenses to get married and conduct marriage.

    A marriage performed in a church, but without the proper civil paperwork and credentials, is not considered a marriage.Any person is freely allowed to perform such a marriage, unless the people getting married want civil benefits. In trying to claim marriage as a strictly religious act, religion is actually trying to circumvent what is and always has been a civil institution.

    Unfortunately, to the ears of this person anyway, yours is the voice that sounds like bitter whining. Who gets to choose what is “normative” in this American culture you speak of?

  3. February 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM

    You can, of course, believe as you will – that is between yourself and your God – and hold whatever opinion of myself and my beliefs as you wish.

    I would point out though the the various religions have held marriage as a holy rite for far longer than any single state has existed – with the possible exception of China, if you ignore dynastic successions and coups.

    Perhaps it would be best if the secular government got its hands off religious sacraments completely and just dealt with civil unions. That way those who seek holy matrimony and those who seek “civil benefits” will not be forced to butt heads over the issue.

    As for who chooses what is normative – the bulk of society – as always – chooses what it normative. That is the nature of the adjective.

    I’m polygamous and except that my family’s lifestyle is also outside of normative bounds. I don’t try to forcibly change society and America’s laws to suit my – minority – desires and I don’t see where other minorities based on behavior should try do so themselves.

    So – whining? Maybe. I’m a Pagan priest and have gladly performed same-sex marriage ceremonies – but I don’t expect secular law to recognize them – and I do get annoyed when secular law describes what their agents do as “marriage.”

  4. 4 Rev Andy Little
    February 1, 2009 at 3:56 PM

    jonolan, perhaps in some ways we aren’t disagreeing.

    I agree there have been religious services for wedlock for eons. Marriage, however, as it has always technically been known, is far newer. Now, we might be into semantics.

    Let’s aside the difference between what you consider marriage to be (what I would call covental wedlock, because I’m an old fashioned f–t) and what I do, I think what you will find is that GLBT want the same civil acknowledgement of their relationship as straight people do.

    Like it or not, and I understand and appreciate that you do not, “marriage” in the sense I am speaking is the governmentally sanctioned legitimization of a family unit – if everyone had the same (be it civil unions or marriage) then I believe the argument would be over.

    I could live with that designation, by the way, and then agree to call marriage the religious rite of blessing.

    By the way, I forgot to add, “Thanks for coming back to dialogue.” BTW, I don’t know you – only your “voice” as you expressed your original sentiments. I neither judge you not deride your beliefs. May blessing continue to accumulate for you on your journey.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

... or, preaching from both ends


That's too bad - I'm so sorry. Oh, well, just try to make the best of it. What you'll find here is a variety of essays and ramblings to do with things theological, social, whimsical and, sometimes, all three. I don't write to get famous - trust me, I've been told how futile that would be - but to express myself. I love to communicate and browbeat - ummm, I mean dialogue - about the things I find intriguing. Since you're here, and the door's locked, why don't you stay a while. There's a page bar under the header with links to information about us - I mean me. Don't forget to tell me what you think - in a nice way, I mean.

Readers since Jan 2009

  • 134,466 posts read


%d bloggers like this: