Even though Christianists will refuse to acknowledge historic truths because they so often threaten the Christianists' fear and hate based house of cards faith constructs, it is important that rational citizens and news outlets be pushed to know the real truth when it comes to the history of civil marriage. And the truth is not - what a shocker - what the Christianists shrieking against same sex marriage would have the public believe. It is crucial that the larger public come to face the reality that when Christianists rant, it is almost always a lie. Not only was "biblical marriage" typical polygamous, but the role of the secular government in regulating marriage long trumped the Church's control over marriage. If anything, the default mode of allowing churches to drive secular marriage that has been seen in the USA is more of an exception than the historic rule. A piece in Huffington Post looks at the real history of the interaction between church and state over the centuries and reveals (as always seems to be the case with the anti-gay religious extremists) that Maggie Gallagher, and company are once again lying. Here are some article highlights:*
*
It is widely claimed by the Religious Right that marriage is a "religious institution," not a civil matter. The facts, unfortunately, are not so simple. State control of marriage is much older than people think and Christianity never spoke with one voice regarding marriage.
*
The fourth century Christian emperor Theodosius, as part of what historian John Boswell called a campaign of "greater and greater totalitarian control over personal aspects of Romans' lives," decreed that only Christianity would be allowed to exist. He also banned gay marriage.
*
The increasingly theocratic despotism of the later Empire often led to intervention in matters such as personal religious convictions or private sexual expression which would have been considered entirely individual under the earlier emperors."
*
The Church got involved only after this intervention on its behalf. Christian law professor Daniel Crane wrote that, "as the power of the church grew, it gradually sought to establish control over marriage directly." But it was only in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church declared that a marriage was only valid if performed by a priest, with two witnesses. Even this was more a slap at the Reformationists and a means of "wedding" believers to the Roman Church. The idea that marriage was a "sacrament" had more to do with the politics of the day than it did with theology.
*
The Protestants denied marriage as a sacrament entirely. Crane wrote that Reformationists saw the state, not the church, as the prime custodian "of matrimony as a civil institution." The authoritarian John Calvin passed the "Marriage Ordinance of Geneva" requiring a state permit to marry.
*
Catholics saw marriage as a church sacrament. Protestants said it was a relationship between a couple and the wider community, and thus more a political concern than a religious one. Witte wrote, "Enlightenment exponents emphasize[d] the contractual (or private) perspective."
*
Exponents of the Enlightenment advocated the abolition of much that was considered sound and sacred in the Western legal tradition of marriage. They urged the abolition of the requirements of parental consent, church consecration, and formal witnesses for marriage. They questioned the exalted status of heterosexual monogamy, suggesting that such matters be left to private negotiation. They called for the absolute equality of husband and wife to receive, hold, and alienate property, to enter into contracts and commerce, to participate on equal terms in the workplace and public square. They castigated the state for leaving annulment practice to the church, and urged that the laws of annulment and divorce be both merged and expanded under exclusive state jurisdiction.
*
The rise of classical liberalism, with its companion, capitalism, meant that income was no longer a function of the family as whole. Sociologist Barry Adams, in Christopher Street, observed: "Capitalism laid the groundwork for voluntary relationships based on personal preference, the precondition for 'romantic love.' Capitalism did not cause romantic love, it allowed it to flourish."
*
[M]odern conservatives see themselves as the heirs of the classical liberal/capitalist tradition. Yet that tradition is responsible for the evolution of marriage over the last few centuries. What modern conservatives are witnessing in the gay marriage revolution is just another logical step toward implementing the values of classical liberalism, with its emphasis on private contract and individual rights. Like it or not, it is the premises that they claim they share with classical liberals that have brought us to where we are today. I for one think that a good thing, even if conservatives don't.
*
It is widely claimed by the Religious Right that marriage is a "religious institution," not a civil matter. The facts, unfortunately, are not so simple. State control of marriage is much older than people think and Christianity never spoke with one voice regarding marriage.
*
The fourth century Christian emperor Theodosius, as part of what historian John Boswell called a campaign of "greater and greater totalitarian control over personal aspects of Romans' lives," decreed that only Christianity would be allowed to exist. He also banned gay marriage.
*
The increasingly theocratic despotism of the later Empire often led to intervention in matters such as personal religious convictions or private sexual expression which would have been considered entirely individual under the earlier emperors."
*
The Church got involved only after this intervention on its behalf. Christian law professor Daniel Crane wrote that, "as the power of the church grew, it gradually sought to establish control over marriage directly." But it was only in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church declared that a marriage was only valid if performed by a priest, with two witnesses. Even this was more a slap at the Reformationists and a means of "wedding" believers to the Roman Church. The idea that marriage was a "sacrament" had more to do with the politics of the day than it did with theology.
*
The Protestants denied marriage as a sacrament entirely. Crane wrote that Reformationists saw the state, not the church, as the prime custodian "of matrimony as a civil institution." The authoritarian John Calvin passed the "Marriage Ordinance of Geneva" requiring a state permit to marry.
*
Catholics saw marriage as a church sacrament. Protestants said it was a relationship between a couple and the wider community, and thus more a political concern than a religious one. Witte wrote, "Enlightenment exponents emphasize[d] the contractual (or private) perspective."
*
Exponents of the Enlightenment advocated the abolition of much that was considered sound and sacred in the Western legal tradition of marriage. They urged the abolition of the requirements of parental consent, church consecration, and formal witnesses for marriage. They questioned the exalted status of heterosexual monogamy, suggesting that such matters be left to private negotiation. They called for the absolute equality of husband and wife to receive, hold, and alienate property, to enter into contracts and commerce, to participate on equal terms in the workplace and public square. They castigated the state for leaving annulment practice to the church, and urged that the laws of annulment and divorce be both merged and expanded under exclusive state jurisdiction.
*
The rise of classical liberalism, with its companion, capitalism, meant that income was no longer a function of the family as whole. Sociologist Barry Adams, in Christopher Street, observed: "Capitalism laid the groundwork for voluntary relationships based on personal preference, the precondition for 'romantic love.' Capitalism did not cause romantic love, it allowed it to flourish."
*
[M]odern conservatives see themselves as the heirs of the classical liberal/capitalist tradition. Yet that tradition is responsible for the evolution of marriage over the last few centuries. What modern conservatives are witnessing in the gay marriage revolution is just another logical step toward implementing the values of classical liberalism, with its emphasis on private contract and individual rights. Like it or not, it is the premises that they claim they share with classical liberals that have brought us to where we are today. I for one think that a good thing, even if conservatives don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment