On a site called – ironically – The Moderate Voice I saw one of the stupidest things I have ever read. As a matter of fact, this is the sort of entry that brings well-deserved scorn down on many slapdash internet sites and gives blogs and so forth a bad image.
I will not reproduce the whole thing here, because it is so riddled with errors of thought and of history that it would take too much time to untangle them.
I think what is at the heart of this idiotic piece is both baggage about the Church and a desire to destroy traditional marriage in favor of homosexual unions.
Here are a couple samples. Set your coffee down.
Raise your hand if you knew that the linkage of “marriage” and religious norms is an artifact of the Catholic Church’s fight for its life in the 16th century?
I’m guessing that many Americans would shudder if they realized that their current religious beliefs were so wedded to the Church’s fight with Protestants. The supremacy of The Church in all things marriage was formalized with The Council of Trent (1545 – 1563), which was organized in response to the “heresies” of the Protestants, led by Martin Luther. From Wikipedia (emphasis added):
The writer then quotes some things about the reaction of the Church at the Council of Trent in the face of Protestant attacks on marriage as a sacrament (Protestants don’t believe marriage is a sacrament).
The writer thinks that because the Church reacted to Protestant errors, and established a theology of marriage and canons about belief in marriage as a sacrament and its celebration then… wait for that… that is what the Church – I am not making this up – invented marriage.
Yes, friends, the Church invented marriage in the 16th century. It seems that during the first 15 centuries of her mission the Church didn’t bother much with marriage.
So why would this person write something which is so obviously absurd? Keep in mind that the writer doesn’t have clue about any dimension of her subject.
The rhetoric surrounding California’s Prop 8 has its roots in the evolution of marriage from a means of male lineage preservation (Jews and the God of Israel and the Old Testament) to a convenience of economics (where women were chattel) to a ceremony of religious sanctity. It is time for America to truly throw off the shackles of the Church and embrace marriage as “an expression of the right to happiness,” a journey with a major milepost during my lifetime — Loving v Virginia. We need a clean break between state and church, marriage that is a private contract between two consenting adults. Period.
Get the picture?
The next step in this program will allow you to marry your dog.