New York’s religious and right wing leaders are preparing to battle Governor David Paterson on yesterday’s gay marriage announcement. Said Catholic activist Richard E. Barnes: “The definition of marriage predates recorded history. No single politician or court or legislature should attempt to redefine the very building block of our society in a way that alters its entire meaning and purpose.” We’re not entirely sure “marriage” actually predates recorded history. Maybe in Bible land, but not the real world. [CBS News]
Gearing Up.
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
Darth Paul
Yes. And homosexuality predates bigoted religous taboos, but that doesn’t make a difference to them; so booty.
Matt Gunterman
Um, excuse me, but what sort of bible-thumping Catholic/Christian is this guy? Seriously, if you believe that the Hebrew and Greek scriptures are the “Word of God” and a record of the unfolding plan of that god for humanity, and in those words your god defines marriage from the very beginning, then how can the definition of marriage predate recorded history. It’s recorded in the bible, isn’t it? Are we not to take the bible as literal? If so, then why should those parts about fornication and homosexual acts be taken literally and other parts not?
foofyjim
Doesn’t some of that recorded history involve wives and children being the property of husbands? Weren’t men actually encouraged to beat their wives and children? Couldn’t men sell off their daughters to the highest bidder? Didn’t the wife give up all property rights?
Sounds like we’ve been redefining marriage for a long time now.
Stenar
The religious right says marriage is a “sacred union” and other right-wingers like to claim marriage is a religious institution and therefore it ought not be open to gay people.
It’s too late to be arguing that marriage is a religious ceremony only. If one wanted to make that argument, one ought to have made it when this country was founded. Civil marriage has been a component of America since the colonists passed laws allowing it.
In actuality, civil marriages predate religious marriages. The first official marriages (approximately 527 A.D. as codified by the Justinian lawyers) were civil marriages among wealthy Romans which had nothing to do with religion.
It wasn’t until the ninth century that the church was involved in any capacity in marriage. From this time until the 12th century church involvement only consisted of blessings and prayers during the marriage ceremony. Around the 12th century, priests began to involve an agreement made in their presence during the marriage ceremony.
English weddings in the 13th century among the upper class became religious events but the church only blessed the marriage and did not want to be too involved in the actual ceremony or have any legal commitment. It wasn’t until 1563 when the Council of Trent required that Catholic marriages be celebrated at a Catholic church by a priest and before two witnesses. And it took up until the eighteenth century before the wedding was a religious event in all countries of Europe.
In Colonial times in North America the customs of the old countries were followed. However, there were some who only wanted a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony. The colonists who wanted civil marriages passed laws to this affect.
At the end of the eighteenth century both religious and civil marriage ceremonies were legal in America. One cannot argue that marriage is a religious institution only and thus should not be an option for gay people since it has always existed in civil form in this country and thus marriage has to be allowed for gay people as it is for straight people according to the U.S. constitution.
Religious institutions which do not support same-sex marriages should not be forced to offer them, but those religious institutions which do support gay marriage should be allowed to offer gay marriages and there definitely ought to be civil marriages for gay people. Because the traditional form of marriage is civil, not religious.
Shabaka
Well that depends where said history was “recorded”, Mr Barnes…
Kenster999
And how would he know this, if it was before recorded history?
Conde Nasty
It is long been my standing that since church and state are to be seperate….. If churches wish to meddle in affairs of state they should be stripped of their tax exempt status. Period.