The sanctity of Elvis
Feb. 11th, 2004 08:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
judecorpI find it very interesting that the American people are currently absorbed with telling the queers all about how marriage is a sacred religious institution brought down the mountains from God and only handed to "one man and one woman," but they seem to forget all of this "sacred" and "religious" rhetoric when their relatives and friends get married by an Elvis impersonator in a drive-through 24-hour Vegas wedding shack. Or in a courthouse by a JP. Or on a shoreline by a friend who was ordained over the Internet. Or for citizenship. Or for money. Or to cover up a family secret.
I mean, really, if the different churches in this country were the final say on who could get married to whom, we'd have same-sex marriages already. If the only marriage in town was the religious marriage, we'd have a bunch of married queers sitting in churches around the world who affirm and sanctify same-sex unions, and we'd have a bunch of non-church-going opposite-sex couples fuming because they've been excluded. As a country, we established a bazillion years ago that religious officials can act as representatives of the State when it comes to marriage... not that the State can act as a representative of religion.
I just don't really understand the issue, I guess. I would have thought that my old divorce would be more of an affront to the "sacredness" of marriage than an honest attempt at commitment with a partner who happens to have the same letter on her driver's license as I do. Then again, I guess the bulk of the people in the world, the ones I don't correspond with, don't think like I do. Serves me right for interacting with social workers and geeks. :)
I mean, really, if the different churches in this country were the final say on who could get married to whom, we'd have same-sex marriages already. If the only marriage in town was the religious marriage, we'd have a bunch of married queers sitting in churches around the world who affirm and sanctify same-sex unions, and we'd have a bunch of non-church-going opposite-sex couples fuming because they've been excluded. As a country, we established a bazillion years ago that religious officials can act as representatives of the State when it comes to marriage... not that the State can act as a representative of religion.
I just don't really understand the issue, I guess. I would have thought that my old divorce would be more of an affront to the "sacredness" of marriage than an honest attempt at commitment with a partner who happens to have the same letter on her driver's license as I do. Then again, I guess the bulk of the people in the world, the ones I don't correspond with, don't think like I do. Serves me right for interacting with social workers and geeks. :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-11 01:42 pm (UTC)I went off on a similar rant a few nights ago when watching all the absurd marriage reality TV show previews that were being advertised...
Re:
Date: 2004-02-11 01:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-12 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-11 02:38 pm (UTC)I hope that in a few decades, we can look back upon these times the same way that we look back upon the civil rights movement--with shock and horror that people had to fight so hard to gain such basic rights, thanks to the evil and ignorance of a few in power.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-12 03:30 am (UTC)But there's never been a Constitutional Amendment to deny human rights before. That takes this to a whole new level. And if this is such a hot-button topic that this is considered, how can we say that someday it will be history, and not in the sense that racism and sexism are "history"?
Re:
Date: 2004-02-12 02:07 pm (UTC)Baby steps
Date: 2004-02-14 04:12 am (UTC)It hurts me.
But you're right. Progress.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-11 03:19 pm (UTC)The "big speaker" was the head of the Boston Catholic church. What irked me was him saying "we need to protect the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage." I saw him say that on the news, but I didn't see it reported in print. I mean, come ON! J & I got married in a CIVIL ceremony, does that mean our marriage doesn't matter? In their eyes, however, it's ok, since we're a man and a woman. And that just ticks me off: I get a bunch of legal rights that others can't get?
Their arguements against gay marriage make me sad and angry at the same time. If your religion says one thing, fine...but this isn't about religion.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-12 04:12 am (UTC)I'm not talking smack about divorce here, mind you. I'm just saying that a) hey, marriage isn't what it's been for 500 years, much less 2,000 and b) it sure feels like they've just decided to draw a line in the sand here on the point of sanctity.
Besides, this isn't about religion! This is about the definition of marriage from a civil standpoint: who gets to share one return instead of filing two, who doesn't get screwed on estate taxes, etc.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-14 04:14 am (UTC)I'm glad my friends are so wise.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-14 04:13 am (UTC)I think it's interesting that it's acknowledged that there's a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage when we're talking about a man and a woman, but throw two men or two women into the scenario, and all of a sudden EVERYTHING'S a religious marriage (or an affront to same).
no subject
Date: 2004-02-11 03:34 pm (UTC)The only "rule" I see fit to impose is pre-marriage counselling.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-11 04:13 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-11 04:18 pm (UTC)WHOO!
Date: 2004-02-14 04:15 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-11 05:29 pm (UTC)Though, I think there ought to be more venues for secular marriage counseling for those who want it.
I'm getting married in June, and am having it at a church which at some point is going to ask my fiance and I how we plan to incorporate Christ in our lives.
We honestly liked the church because it's in the community I was raised in, and I was also raised a Methodist (It's a Methodist church) but neither of us go to church. So, we're not really religious people (I'm sure we're going to be banished from some circle of hell for that)
We wanted a 'spiritual' aspect to our wedding, but in no way is it any sacrament or sanctity, religiously for us. It's hard to describe and I went way off on a tangent here, but ultimately I totally agree with you.
no subject
no subject
Date: 2004-02-11 04:00 pm (UTC)It depends on the letter. In your case I think the matching J is the problem.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-12 03:04 am (UTC)CURSES!
no subject
Date: 2004-02-11 05:12 pm (UTC)1) Marriage is a fundamental and sacred right. By the court's own ruling(s). Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut.
2) Sexual orientation is not grounds for the denial of rights. By the court's own ruling(s). Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas.
3) The disapproval of the majority is not grounds for the denial of rights. Again, by the courts own ruling(s). Lawrence v. Texas.
That should pretty much clinch it.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-12 03:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-12 03:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-11 06:16 pm (UTC)Power to the JUDECORP!
no subject
Date: 2004-02-14 04:16 am (UTC)Rowr!
no subject
Gasp! Janet Jackson Boobies on Parade!
Date: 2004-02-11 11:49 pm (UTC)A culture that refuses to examine itself is doomed. Period.
Besides, who's holier than Elvis? Oprah? These our are larger deities. Is it any wonder that divorce rates are on the rise -- the phantasy has replaced the reality?
No matter what, the world needs more of Janet and her bouncing sundail pasties. And America needs to laugh at itself every once in a while.
Re: Gasp! Janet Jackson Boobies on Parade!
Date: 2004-02-12 03:06 am (UTC)That whole class action thing blows my effing mind, B. I mean, dear god, you're suing the television because it had a boob on it?
Anyway you spell it, Oprah is not the answer..
Date: 2004-02-12 03:19 pm (UTC)Here's the other thing that gets swept under in this debate: Conservatives pay so much lipservice to the sanctity of marriage and two parent households, but refuse to give the opportunity to homosexual couples. Not to mention the fact that it creates a larger adoption pool...
Re: Anyway you spell it, Oprah is not the answer..
Date: 2004-02-14 04:17 am (UTC)Re: Anyway you spell it, Oprah is not the answer..
Date: 2004-02-19 04:19 pm (UTC)Re: Anyway you spell it, Oprah is not the answer..
Date: 2004-02-20 11:27 pm (UTC)You're right -- they might think that the kids would get some kind of undiscovered cootie, or some such nonsense.
...And everyone is addressed to me....
Re: Anyway you spell it, Oprah is not the answer..
Date: 2004-02-21 08:17 pm (UTC)Cooties for everyone!!
Mmmmm, adolescent taboos...
Date: 2004-02-23 10:28 pm (UTC)Millions of cooties, look out!
(Air guitar solo)
Re: Gasp! Janet Jackson Boobies on Parade!
Date: 2004-02-12 03:07 am (UTC)That whole class action thing blows my effing mind, B. I mean, dear god, you're suing the television because it had a boob on it? Next we'll be suing breastfeeding mothers.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-12 05:28 am (UTC)um, well, anyway, WBZ 1030 (an AM radio news station in Boston) reported President Busch is trying to ame...amm...FIX the United States constitution to do the same thing.
If I can quote Gary LaPierre (a "DJ" on said radio station), "I'm STRAIGHT and this is just WRONG!"
Am I wrong in thinking you don't change a constitution just to prevent people from getting married?
p.s.
http://www.ericblumrich.com/idiot.html
(I can't do hyperlinks in others' posts yet, so cut and paste that -- you'll be glad you did...and give it a minute to load, please...)
Re:
Date: 2004-02-12 05:28 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-12 05:31 am (UTC)CORRECTION:
It wasn't Gary who said that...I don't know who did, but I know I heard it there.
Okay. Time for bed. No, really...
no subject
Date: 2004-02-22 06:14 pm (UTC)And I got your letter this past week. YAY!
no subject
Date: 2004-02-13 08:38 am (UTC)For now, I'm doing the next best thing, which is annoying my state representatives to oppose the Lundberg resolution. Also debating the merits of taking Laurel with us to the Marriage Equality Rally on Valentine's Day.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-14 04:18 am (UTC)Laurel has a cool mommy!!