Starving to oppress
The Family Foundation has called for a protest in their state. What is this protest on? Why marriage equality of course and how are they going to protest? They are starving themselves for 40 days thinking that it will have a real effect on reality.
They are calling for this protest in a post they have on their website. To start the post off on solid footing they have this bit of fiction:
Our state and nation are mired in a morass of confusion and post-modern thinking that does not believe in absolutes nor that any truth can even be known. Nowhere is this more evident than in the current debate raging about what constitutes marriage. Pagan philosophies, a secular humanist education establishment and an entertainment industry that is absolutely determined in pushing the envelope on decency and morality have all combined to turn this great land into a country that our forefathers could not even begin to recognize.
They act like this post-modern thinking is a bad thing. It's not a bad thing to be skeptical about things. I find it funny that they say that pagan philosophies are part of their perceived problem with our country when most of their religion is based off pagan philosophies. Also, I find that complaining about Secular Humanist Education Establishment is just laughable and displays their ignorance to reality. That means that they don't like the idea of putting the well being of other humans above some fantasy madman in the sky. They don't like being taught the realities of Evolution and The Big Bang.
The idea that the forefathers wouldn't even begin to recognize the country that we live is wholly accurate. They wouldn't be able to recognize this country for many reasons but a main one is the fact that religion has such a strong hold on the government. This is of course after they get past the horseless carriages and all the free African Americans that are allowed to vote.
A History of Marriage
We should be skeptical of our traditions in the past especially this preconceived idea as to what Marriage is.
A good book to look at for good information on the history of marriage is Stephanie Coontz's "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage". In her book she states:
What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman. It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force.
She goes on to denote that marriage is an ancient institution that predates recorded history and that most of the time the subjects of the marriage had no say in it. LiveScience has an excellent article discussing 13 points that Coontz makes in her book. She also makes this point:
In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins. You have to admit that it's getting harder and harder to defend this idea of Traditional Marriage as they see it.
Seems to me like if we truly want traditional marriage in our society we should be forcing our children into marriages in order to create stronger alliances between families. If that happens to be with a cousin, then so the fuck what. It doesn't matter that offspring from parents that are close relatives have a high probability of genetic disorders. That is that post-modernist thinking and we won't have any of it.
Also, we should legalize polygamy because that has it's roots in traditional marriage. Not just in the bible either. There is a lot of solid evidence that points to the fact that it was socially acceptable to have a polygamous marriage. Monogamy didn't become a guiding force in marriage until some time between the 6th and 9th centuries, so that doesn't seem very traditional to me. Also that type of monogamy was really just a lite version considering that adultery was seen as a common place and the laws of the time favored the man. If we are going to instantiate traditional marriage in this country, then those women pushing for it need to be ok with their husbands sleeping around with other women and having illegitimate children, because the current version of monogamy didn't appear until the 19th century. Of course the laws on women sleeping around was a good bit stricter.
Originally marriages were contracts between the families of those being married with the Church and state staying completely out of the matter. It wasn't until 1215 that the Catholic Church said anything about marriage and even then it was just mandating that people post a notice about an upcoming marriage on their local parish. Until the 1500s, the church would accept people at their word that they were married, so this idea that marriage is completely about religion is utterly absurd.
Marriage licenses weren't around until Massachusetts started requiring them in 1639 and by the 19th century most US States had adopted this practice. So, the state didn't have a stake in marriages till they realized they could make money from it and the churches only interest was verifying that people were in fact being married. From 1639 till now, the connection between state and marriage has only strengthened to where it has become an intricate part of our society.
Given that we are a secular nation, despite what the religious right want to believe, we must not allow religion to dictate anything in our government. That is exactly what caused us to separate from England and we shouldn't revert back to a system that obviously doesn't work and only causes misery.
Please check out my video that goes with this blog post: