Mawidge is a dweam wiffin a dweam
In actuality, marriage is a contract between people. It’s a very private contract, and it’s conditions are sometimes not even fully known to the entrants of the contract themselves, until certain boundaries are crossed.
The Ogwife and I were married to one another long before we engaged in any ceremony, we made that commitment to one another and have stuck by it. it has certainly been one of the most important decisions in my life.
And to me, it was a very private one. To most men, I imagine, the wedding is less important than the marriage, the wedding is an expensive party they throw so that their friends can celebrate with them; to women, the day has a different feel that I don’t completely comprehend.
For the Ogwife to come from the Great White North and live here, we had to be legally married. And that was fine by me; I was perfectly happy to let the official record show that we were bound to one another.
Because of my past, I was unable to do this within the Church, so we were married by a non denominational minister. As far as I was concerned, this was strictly a legal civil ceremony, and that was all I desired.
I invited nobody to this but Partner, who stood as my Best Man. As far as I was concerned, the Law requires five people. the bride and groom, two witnesses, and a minister. The sixth person is not only unnecessary, but persona non grata.
But the Ogwife’s full crew attended, and they are a noisy and boisterous bunch, though short, and I was fine by this; after all, this celebration was all about her, not me. I just needed a piece of paper, so she could move in with me.
To anyone who has been in a real relationship, you understand that the relationship is not based on some farcical aquatic ceremony the big wingding you throw for your family and friends to get liquored up at, the relationship is based on your commitment for one another. All humans, though, being what they are, tend to think of beginnings and ends, and like to have demarcations as to when those beginnings and ends occurred. Like a baptism or a briss or a funeral or a confirmation or a bar mitsvah, there are often public markers to accentuate the transition between the state- for instance, of being single and being married.
There is certainly no issue with gay people wanting these markers, of course, because it is human nature. The civil ceremony that allows this to happen is a really good idea, and for those who want to feel that the Creator has blessed their union, there are plenty of churches who will perform that ceremony.
But plenty will not.
That is the crux of the matter, and many people who listen to me yap love to simply dismiss me as an ignorant rube, but I’ve been studying this issue (Among many others) since I entered the seminary in Finding what you’re looking for JB?. I have some history.
I am amused at people who have no issues with this, and who “believe” that everything will be OK, there’s no reason for any church to worry, because “They have an exemption!!”
Here’s a little hint for anyone who has their finger that far away from the clue button: Like the Healthcare law, like gun laws, like anything that codifies anything: if it begins it’s life requiring exemptions, it is most likely a bad thing. And exemptions that are granted can be revoked. I’m amused that suddenly we can trust the FedGov to grant exemptions and not change it’s mind.
I wish I was wrong on this, but I am not. I don’t give a shit that people think I’m a rube for thinking this, because I don’t give a shit what anyone thinks of me period. I do give a shit what happens to Christianity, and it is obvious that the desire to shut down Christianity is there, among the gay population. You don’t have to look hard; after the Prop 8 kerfuffle the gays in Cali were running around yelling shit like “Burn their fucking churches, then tax charred timbers”(the link goes to a gay conservative website, not the originator of that spiteful shit)
No, that’s just a few radicals, we should never base anything on what those few radicals say. Like those few Islamic radicals. The rest of them are so nice!
As I have said here before: the Civil Union law in Illinois has my complete support. I also have no issue with churches who are willing to marry gay couples, and report those marriages as civil unions. I myself have credentials from the Universal Life Church that allow me to marry people, have had for ages. Why? because I officiated at the ceremony of a couple gay friends of mine. No, it wasn’t legally binding, but it gave them a public way to express their feelings for one another, and I was happy to oblige. Someday I’ll dig out the sermon I gave and post it, if I can find it. I had it on a ss/sd floppy from my Apple 2e.
The gay marriage thing always has been and always will be a tool to force the churches to accept the Gay lifestyle, and if they cannot, to put them out of business. But don’t pay any attention to an ignernt redneck homophobic bible thumping fool like me, just wait. (the idea that I am homophobic is so bizarre that I cannot describe the amusement I derive from THAT.)
I know I won’t get anyone to open their eyes and look outside what they “believe” and see what’s going on in the observable world, but I had to try, stupid as I am for doing so.
17 comments Og | Uncategorized
Iv’e been saying this to people for years.
I absolutely support gay marriage. I am absolutely against state recognition and sponsorship of marriage. The state has only been in the marriage game in the u.s. for less than a hundred years and there is no reason we can’t go back to that.
The “gay marriage” movement isn’t about gays getting married. They can already do that in some churches and in many states through civil unions.
It’s about forcing organizations that don’t wish to recognize gay marriage to do so, through lawsuits.
Which I REALLY have a problem with.
I could give a damn about gay marriage. I just don’t see the point in the government sticking their greedy fingers into it. The fact that I had to purchase a license from the state in order to marry my wife continues to annoy me, nearly 11 years later.
nah, Chris, you must be one of those ignernt conspiracy theorists.
I also wish the state wasn’t in the marriage business at all.
I have to agree with Christopher as the his reasoning as to why the gay community wants this marriage thing so badly.
I would think that any reasonable gay person would be hesitant to want to get married. The statistics show that that the average live-in stay-together rate for male homosexuals is about three years, one would think that the only people rooting for gay marriage would be divorce lawyers.
Wouldn’t a much better use of resources be to get the state out of the marriage ceremony completely?
Unless, as Christopher states, that it’s not about whether gays can marry, rather it’s about having the legal clout to beat up on traditional religious organizations. Then it makes perfect sense.
I am for a mechanism that allows gay couples to have the same rights/benefits/protections as those created by a hetero marriage contract.
Unfortunately I think you’re right in that by pushing the ‘marriage’ part, the next step will be punative action against any religious organization that refuses to be a participant in that contract.
It’s no different than forcing a private company to create a whole new mechanism, like they did with e-Harmony, which was not set up for gay folks.
But then I think everyone should have a Civil Union and then whatever religious icing they wish to put on their cake (or not).
Would definitely love to see your sermon if you can translate it into modern bytes.
As an addendum, you guys are right in that there is no reason the state should be involved although back in the day, there was a community recognition of the union and this is a substitute.
Yep, that “Substitute” might be better served- and serve us all better- if they took it back to the ‘Civil union” days nationwide. Let churches do what they want, and if any church wants to marry gays, let them.
“Unless, as Christopher states, that it’s not about whether gays can marry, rather it’s about having the legal clout to beat up on traditional religious organizations. Then it makes perfect sense. ”
Don’t go reasoning now. better to “believe” that gays deserve all the rights of anyone, and destroy any church who disagrees.
… I won’t get anyone to open their eyes and look outside …
Mebbe not. But ya make me think
Good one, Og, too bad munkinwrangler probably won’t be coming over to read it. I tried pointing this out over there at his place, but with his fingers in his ears and his hands over his eyes while chanting, “La, la, la, I can’t hear you.”, I don’t think he got it.
When your mind is closed, putting your fingers in your ears won’t change much either. Marko is a great guy. I wish he was capable of reason.
“Civil unions” are fine by me. I don’t have a problem with gays having access to the same kind of legal instruments–the same benefits and responsibilities–that heterosexual couples do. But it’s not a marriage, and should not be defined as such.
“Marriage” is primarily a system designed to ensure the best chances of generating and raising civilized children in order to perpetuate a civilization. It has–in a properly-functioing society–the effect of regulating and channeling the sex drives of men and women into more productive efforts.
(They say that marriage civilizes men, but anyone who pays even the slightest attention to “Game” will understand that it also civilizes women.)
So I actually think Illinois did it correctly, which kind of amazes me considering the level of contempt I hold for Illinois politics.
“So I actually think Illinois did it correctly, which kind of amazes me considering the level of contempt I hold for Illinois politics.”
My precise sentiments.
All y’all got dressed, put on your go-to-town clothes, left your houses by the front doors, AND FAILED TO MAKE IT OFF THE PORCH!
Of course gays should have the civil rights we straights enjoy. Of course liberals and other pinkos should be able to keep and bear arms.
I see a simple solution: a simple law that removes from the states their right to conduct “marriage” (by that name), and gives that right BACK to the religions from whence it came in the first place.
Does that “establish” religion? I dono, I’m not a barrister, but there are plenty of them lurking who can answer that.
It’s simple. Everyone gets equal rights to involve themselves in a legal union, but no one except your flavor of frocked priest can call such a union a “marriage”.
Should be the end of the discussion, but it won’t be, because of those who insist that they must have those Special rights to call themselves Special.
I’m the perfect example: I got married in a wedding chapel hard by the Clark County Courthouse in Vancouver, WA. All the chapel gave me (besides the giggles when they played “All the little fishies” or some such nursery song as the recessional) was a stupid little wallet card that no one would have ever believed was a “marriage certificate. I jaywalked across the street to the Clerk’s office, paid my fee, and was issued an Official Certificate of Marriage by the State of WA. Raised seal and all. Never had to invoke the Lord’s name, either in vain or otherwise.
That was my second Marriage. My first was in St. Rita’s Parish in Portland, a proper religious fooferaw. It lasted as long as my patience for my crazy wife, about 7 years. Still marching to the tune of the mama fishie and the baby fishies too, I’m still hitched to #2 lo these 34 years.
Marriage ain’t about being a Believer, it’s about believing in yourself and your spouse.
Dog: I’d rather roll back the state’s authority than make any “new” laws, but yeah, you know what I mean.
What a contemptable fool I am.
Curt: Your reading comprehension is beyond horrible.
Marriage is indeed the most personal of sacraments. Demonstrably, provably so. Society has glamorized it into something it is not.
You have about an hour to reread the post, comprehend what it says, and retract your statements and apologize. After that, your comment will be deleted.