Monday, September 3, 2012

Non-sequiteur of the day

"This is the beginning of
a unique institution. Get in
the cave, b----h!"
David Anderson:
Marriage . . . is a unique institution in human history that has shaped civilization before written history.
 Other than that unquestionable Source of Sources (the Hebrew Bible), exactly how do we know that marriage was shaping civilization before people started writing?

The archaeological find of the millenium?  Eve's wedding ring?

As for the incredibly ethnocentric statement that marriage is a "unique institution," somebody really needs to do some research (even throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition) to discover that the history of marriage includes some rather wide variations, and has almost always existed for economic rather than "spiritual" purposes.

In fact, the Western definition of marriage is among the most restrictive in history.

But, hey, don't let actual history get in the way of a good diatribe on history as evangelical Christians would like it to have been.

So this primary season think about the candidates who see marriage equality as a constitutional right, and don't think that a particular view of the King James Bible should rule a secular society.


kavips said...

I dug this out of my archives. It was also a response to the idea that heterosexual marriage is natural law and therefore sanctioned by the Constitution, a claim once made by the same person who is the subject of your post today.....

Eric Dondero said...

So then, why don't we just abolish marriage altogether Steve? Have the courage of your convictions. If you believe what you say in this piece, than one must assume that you're just anti-marriage altogether.

Oopsie, that's probably not a winning position for the Libertarian Party of Delaware, so you're probably not willing to say that out loud.

Anonymous said...

@ Eric

Marriage is not a function of government; it neither has the right to sanction, condone, restrict, endorse or regulate. It certainly cannot abolish (to use your words).

Marriage is a Sacrament in my religion. It’s meaning and requirements begins and ends with the church. My marriage is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, I could give a rat’s ass what the State of Delaware thinks.

Most (all) Libertarians believe that what consenting adults do in their bedroom does not need the sanctioning (license) of the State. Libertarians are not pro or anti marriage. Your entire point is pointless.

John Galt

LaoTze said...

I would love to have government out of marriage. If we decide it is helpful to have a public registry of civil union to allow for such things as end of life decisions, I'm fine with that. But my marriage and Mr. Galts marriage are vastly different things. That's good.

kavips said...

Abolish marriage altogether???? Just because same sex couples want the same rights as opposite sex couples? So you are going to abolish marriage altogether... Ok.. Let's do it..

However, the same results could be achieved by simply letting those people who wanted to get married do so, and letting those people who didn't want to get married, also do so....

That makes more sense than abolishing all marriage, and thereby pissing off EVEN MORE people... duh....

Dana Garrett said...

Personally, I'm for the idea of getting the state out of the marriage recognition business altogether. Let the state recognize civil unions only, something that can be done by filling out a form. Leave marriage to religions or other groups to regulate as they wish. But if the state doesn't quit the marriage-recognition business, then it should recognize homosexual marriages. Otherwise the dictum "equality under the law" has no meaning.