State job is not to redefine marriageThe pretext is that state constitutions require it -- but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years. And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction.
No, what is offensive is Card's ignorance of
human history. Though I am personally heartened to find someone who knows less history than I do.
Here's the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.
This from a member of the LDS church. My head asplodes.
2 comments:
don't you think the original point of marriage was to be between a man and a woman? and to create a structure within a family can be raised?
I'm not an expert on human history either...but this issue came up because a French friend of mine said that marriage was instituted by the Church in Europe. Maybe it keeps the population manageable or something...or sane...but I'm not married so maybe it keeps people insane.
I don't know the history of the Church in Europe, but I know the Celts had some odd (to us) traditions. Maybe that is what he is talking about.
But you don't have to look so long or deep to find out that our 'traditional' view of marriage is not some long-held historical way of doing things. It's fairly new.
Although if you really do want traditional marriage, let me just say right now that I am *all for* men getting to have sex with slave girls when our wives fail to bear us a son. Doesn't get much more traditional than that.
Post a Comment