[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!

Ok this is Funny

Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool

THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA

THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232

Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need

"How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America"

How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: The Myth About Marriage
Source: New York Review of Books
URL Source: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblo ... s%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Published: May 13, 2012
Author: Garry Wills
Post Date: 2012-05-13 10:23:43 by lucysmom
Keywords: None
Views: 67619
Comments: 126

Why do some people who would recognize gay civil unions oppose gay marriage? Certain religious groups want to deny gays the sacredeness of what they take to be a sacrament. But marriage is no sacrament.

Some of my fellow Catholics even think that “true marriage” was instituted by Christ. It wasn’t. Marriage is prescribed in Eden by YHWH (Yahweh) at Genesis 2.24: man and wife shall “become one flesh.” When Jesus is asked about marriage, he simply quotes that passage from Genesis (Mark 10.8). He nowhere claims to be laying a new foundation for a “Christian marriage” to replace the Yahwist institution.

Some try to make the wedding at Cana (John 1.1-11) somehow sacramental because Jesus worked his first miracle there. But that was clearly a Jewish wedding, like any other Jesus might have attended, and the miracle, by its superabundance of wine, is meant to show the disciples that the Messianic time has come. The great Johannine scholar Father Raymond Brown emphasizes this, and concludes of the passage: “Neither the external nor the internal evidence for a symbolic reference to matrimony is strong. The wedding is only the backdrop and occasion for the story, and the joining of the man and woman does not have any direct role in the narrative.”

The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs.

snip

Those who do not want to let gay partners have the sacredness of sacramental marriage are relying on a Scholastic fiction of the thirteenth century to play with people’s lives, as the church has done ever since the time of Aquinas. The myth of the sacrament should not let people deprive gays of the right to natural marriage, whether blessed by Yahweh or not. They surely do not need—since no one does—the blessing of Saint Thomas.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 44.

#18. To: lucysmom, all (#0)

The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs.

That is clearly not true. St. Ambrose (340-397) in his letter to Siricius (Ep. xlii, 3, in P.L., XVI, 1124):

"Since the contracting of marriage must be sanctified by the veiling and the blessing of the priest, how can there be any mention of a marriage, when unity of faith is wanting?"

Also there is this:

Marriage in the Western Church: The Christianization of Marriage During The Patristic and Early Medieval Periods (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, V. 24)

There are many other sources out there that clearly show that there was some sort of church rite involved in marriage. Was there a "specific rite"? I have no idea, but considering the distances and different traditions involved, I doubt it.

Those who do not want to let gay partners have the sacredness of sacramental marriage are relying on a Scholastic fiction of the thirteenth century to play with people’s lives,

The problem with this statement is that ALL Catholic Churches, even the ones that have been separated from Rome since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (i.e. the so-called "Oriental Churches"), recognize and have always recognized the sacrament of marriage. So do the so-called Orthodox Churches, who separated from Rome in 1054.

Having said all that, I agree with the author to a point. I don't care whether or not two men or two women marry, as long as the government does not force a religious institution to do it. If they want a judge or some other secular body to marry them, fine by me. That is between them and Our Lord. They will have to stand in front of God just like the rest of us. In my not so humble opinion it is immoral and not Biblical to use the force of government to stop them from offending The Lord. That is not our job as Christians to do. Jesus himself stated:

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

Nowhere does it say use the force of government to stop him or her from trespassing against you. The more authoritarian and self-righteous among us will vehemently disagree, and that's fine too. We'll find out soon enough who was right and who was wrong.

Fibr Dog  posted on  2012-05-13   11:41:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Fibr Dog (#18)

There are many other sources out there that clearly show that there was some sort of church rite involved in marriage. Was there a "specific rite"? I have no idea, but considering the distances and different traditions involved, I doubt it.

I don't see that there any significant conflict between the article I posted and what you've said.

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   11:49:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: lucysmom (#23)

There are many other sources out there that clearly show that there was some sort of church rite involved in marriage. Was there a "specific rite"? I have no idea, but considering the distances and different traditions involved, I doubt it.

I don't see that there any significant conflict between the article I posted and what you've said.

I disagree.

To say that "...This (the marriage rite) was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs" is an inaccurate portrayal of the situation.

The fact, as I have shown, is that there was indeed a marriage rite and that marriage was not "left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire." Marriage was much more than just a "legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs" to a Christian couple getting married.

You may not consider that to be significant, and I respect that, but I consider it to be very significant because it shows that his attempt to delegitimize the Church in order to make his point is not factual.

Fibr Dog  posted on  2012-05-13   12:01:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Fibr Dog (#27)

The fact, as I have shown, is that there was indeed a marriage rite and that marriage was not "left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire." Marriage was much more than just a "legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs" to a Christian couple getting married.

He says specific marriage rite and you agreed that was most likely so.

He also argues that marriage is not a sacrament - here's what the Catholic Church says: The exact definition of a sacrament is that it is "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace."

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   12:33:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: lucysmom (#36)

He says specific marriage rite and you agreed that was most likely so.

But he also said, "this was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs."

Nothing was "left up to the secular authorities of the Roman empire" and Christians did not get married simply because "marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs." Whether or not the church at that time had a uniform, one-size-fits-all marriage rite is neither here nor there. The fact is, of which there is tons of evidence, the Christian church had marriage rites at least as early as the 4th century. In fact, as my quotes and link show, until the rite was done, the marriage was not recognized by the Church, just as its not recognized today.

He also argues that marriage is not a sacrament - here's what the Catholic Church says: The exact definition of a sacrament is that it is "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace."

He can call himself a Catholic all he wants. I can say I'm a lawnmower until I'm blue in the face but that doesn't make me one. He can also make all the claims he wants but his claims were not proven. I claim the moon is made of blue cheese! Does that make it so? Where is his proof?

I believe the Catholic Church has done an excellent job in defending/justifying/proving that marriage has always been considered a sacrament in the Church.

I also believe that the fact that marriage is considered a sacrament by Churches that split with Rome in the 4th century to be pretty good proof that the Church has always considered marriage to be a sacrament.

Fibr Dog  posted on  2012-05-13   13:30:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Fibr Dog (#42)

Good points.

I want to point out, however, that irrespective of religious practices from animism to the Church of Scientology and all those in between, that marriage was an important consideration in secular societies as well. Again, the goal has always been to ensure a minimum of social standards about a relationship wherein children were an important attribute for and about the same community.

Beyond having progeny, another social goal was to ensure reasonable community FORCE against those that violated the bonds of the communal vows. Rape, incest, homosexuality and so forth were always shunned within almost all societies around the world. If someone was caught in acts that violated social standards, they were often shunned or chastised for years or even worse, put to death.

As modern societies evolve, we are intricately linked to our past of many thousands of years. It is codified in our DNA and the documented laws for social behaviour. And the sense of "shame" shall always be the first area of responsible considerations, even if there is some sort of agreement to keep a relationship secret or away from society.

buckeroo  posted on  2012-05-13   13:53:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 44.

#113. To: buckeroo, SJN (#44)

I want to point out, however, that irrespective of religious practices from animism to the Church of Scientology and all those in between, that marriage was an important consideration in secular societies as well. Again, the goal has always been to ensure a minimum of social standards about a relationship wherein children were an important attribute for and about the same community.

Beyond having progeny, another social goal was to ensure reasonable community FORCE against those that violated the bonds of the communal vows. Rape, incest, homosexuality and so forth were always shunned within almost all societies around the world. If someone was caught in acts that violated social standards, they were often shunned or chastised for years or even worse, put to death.

As modern societies evolve, we are intricately linked to our past of many thousands of years. It is codified in our DNA and the documented laws for social behaviour. And the sense of "shame" shall always be the first area of responsible considerations, even if there is some sort of agreement to keep a relationship secret or away from society.

EXCELLENT post, Buck.

In a total reversal of our innate God-programmed sense of shame and right-and-wrong, contemporary "enlightened" man sees ZERO shame these days for the most egregious of cultural behavior; So much so that righteousness and virtue are now somehow regarded by this new perverted pop culture as "shameful".

Right is wrong; Up is down. Good is evil. The End Days indeed.

Liberator  posted on  2012-05-13 21:58:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 44.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com