"I love feministing.com and always learn from it." Katha Pollitt, The Nation
"Many people need a morning "fix." For some, it's coffee. For others, it's "SportsCenter." For me, it's Feministing.com." Katie Stone, The Denver Post
"Feminism is fun again! Every bit as edifying as your women's studies books from college, but with a biting sense of humor that keeps things punchy, not preachy." Marie Claire, December 2006
Gay marriage will not bring the end of civilization, reality television will.
I am so deeply disturbed when politicians running for office fail to read history. In an interview with GQ, Mike Huckabee claims that gay marriage would lead to the demise of civilization. That, any society that has changed the rules of marriage, has not survived.
I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it’s one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that’s their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that’s an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square. And if you look at states that have had it on the ballot—I know in our state it was a 70-percent-against issue. Most states are similar to that.
Supporting traditional marriage is being against gay marriage, doesn't matter how many ways you spin it. That is transparent. If conservatives want to keep marriage so traditional they should be thinking about reality TV shows that are anything but sacred, or divorce rates, which as Wanda Sykes says is the biggest threat to marriage-not gay marriage.
Also, can I see some examples of when marriage laws were changed, a society or civilization crumbled. Beyond the fact that many, many, many societies have changed marriage laws and traditions, including our own when we overturned anti-miscegenation laws, civilizations have not been destroyed. Devilstower at Kos makes the point that,
The truth is that every society rewrites the rules of marriage and family. That's what happens to all our social values as they respond to changes in how we live, what we know, and our available resources. Yes, friction occurs when the boundaries of a social convention no longer match those of a society in which it's embedded, but the societies that survive are exactly those which demonstrate the flexibility to change and adapt.
I agree, but I also take an even more hard-line stance, that as long as marriage is pushed to maintain traditional gender roles, it is under the purview of patriarchy. Not allowing gay marriage is just another way to maintain male gender dominance in heteronormative marriage structures. It is one of the untold stories deeply embedded in the castrated, paranoid imagination of the freeper.
Furthermore, if they actually believe that allowing gay marriage will bring the end of civilization, they are giving a lot of credit to the actual power allowing gay marriage would have. It is going to take a lot more than a mainstream, middle class, gay marriage movement, to dismantle the oppressive state-sanctioned, culturally mandated apparatus, that heternormative marriage is.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://feministing.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/6466.
Comments
But if we let gays get married, they'll clog up the Club Wed gift registry at Target, which will trigger anomie among consumers! Mass chaos!
The only reason this is still an issue is that the Republican party is trying desperately to distract the American people from the reality of global politics so they can keep profiting off of the ignorance of the masses.
"If conservatives want to keep marriage so traditional they should be thinking about reality TV shows that are anything but sacred, or divorce rates, which as Wanda Sykes says is the biggest threat to marriage-not gay marriage."
Trust me, Huckabee is thinking about that too. He successfully pushed for the creation of "Covenant Marriages" in Arkansas – a super-sized version of marriage that makes it much, much more difficult to get a divorce. He even renewed his own vows and entered a Covenant Marriage with his wife Janet in a public ceremony (all paid for by the tax payers of course).
As an historian, I'm always utterly gobsmacked by the apparent total lack of understanding by people who argue for "tradition" that tradition changes over time and that the "traditional" marriage Huckabee is promoting is, as Samhita points out, only one of many, many relational contracts we human beings have come up with.
And the idea that any culture/community that has changed these traditions has disappeared? Priceless.
Lets not forget that white Republicans were touting this same line of bullshit about marriage and family when interracial marriages were on the board. God never "intended" for the races to mix and what about those poor, poor mixed kids who wouldn't know what side they belonged to? White people would never accept them and it sucks to be black so best to keep to your own race.[/snark]
All we really have to do is look to the countries that have allowed gay marriage and see if they've imploded.
I like how it's Huckabee who says this crap. Wait, doesn't like setting rapists free despite multiple letters from his surviving victims about how he raped them at knifepoint and that he will kill next time, doesn't THAT destroy civilization or whatever?! No no i guess his idea of civilization is somewhere more along the lines of a society that harms women, gays, and anyone else who isn't white and male. Asshole.
Huckabee fucking keeps getting better and better.. saying that changing so called traditions is needed for a decent society is retarded. If nothing ever changed we'd be burning everyone who was different than us at the stake. We would have seperate schools for whites and blacks. we would use bleeding as a cure for anything. society should be progressive because humans are progressive. although now I'm not so sure some of us are.. :P
Word, UltraMagnus. I live in Canada, and from what I can tell, things are pretty much business as usual since gay people have been getting married... you know, no crumbling of civilization or whatnot. Funny that.
I'm in the middle of reading Stephanie Coontz's "Marriage: A History", and she posits that the biggest change in marriage, globally/historically, was when we stopped marrying for primarily economic reasons and starting marrying for Twue Wuv. It's really interesting.
Do you think he's going to back track on this one like he did on the "raise your hand if you are a fucking mor-"..I mean "raise your hand if you do not believe in evolution" thing?
I think it's interesting that some Christians, who'll spend hours telling you about how merciful their god is, will turn around and say that the same god is punishing the nation (in some nonspecific manner) for the sins of the gays and the feminists. At least when Rome fell it was theologically consistent to say, "The Christians didn't worship our gods, so the gods got pissed and punished us."
Oh, and while we're on "traditional marriage," has anyone bothered explaining to Huckabee and his ilk that the Christian churches didn't perform marriages for the first few centuries? It was considered a civil matter, not a religious one. If God didn't care then, I can't imagine why he'd start now.
I don't remember the name or year, but there was a Supreme Court case that ruled that inherent in the right to marry is the right to marry the person you choose. Interracial marriage case. So, we have indeed redefined marriage and society did not crumble, and we addressed the right to marry as a right. Pretty much a dead debate if you ask me.
It just seems like this should be so easy to debunk that there's no reason for it to be such a big debate. It's amazing how stubborn people are. But really, I think part of the gay marriage campaign should be to take quotes like Huckabee's and compare them to quotes from people who argued against the legalization of miscegenation and from people who argued against outlawing wife battery and marital rape. We should be asking people: what if people had listened to the Huckabees of the world when those issues were being argued? Besides the fact that OBVIOUSLY gay marriage does not make societies crumble and disappear. I don't know how someone could even attempt to say that when we have a state in our own country that allows them. I mean if Huckabee doesn't know what Canada is, fine, but surely he's heard of Massachusetts?
What really gets me is how people seem to think there's some kind of marriage currency that will undergo inflation if gay marriage is legalized. It will "devalue" traditional marriage! What, you mean the only reason you value your marriage is that it puts you in some sort of hetero-only club? Really?
And I was grilled when I expressed that I reject marriage because it's an institution that confines women to a role that doesn't benefit them at all and because the fact that homosexuals can't get married shows that marriage is less about love and commitment and more about appearances and tax breaks. And, honestly, rejecting marriage completely is the only way to protest against this institution. I'm sure that'll cheese Huckabee off.
sigh. im from canada. one of those countries that have allowed this gay "marriage" to take place.
and. lettmetellya.
everything has fallen apart since. we still have federally funded abortion. covered under a national healthcare!!! (WTF??? pay for if yourselves!).
we also dont help countries in need of democracy! we are the true definition of a society that is CRUMBLING. CRUMBLING.
(just in case the sarcasm was only in my head - it's there)
I am so tired of the gay marriage debate. I think the REAL problem is that this country chose to turn a religious institution (marriage) into a state institution. So now, instead of gay couples simply having to fight the government (a task in itself) they are also having to fight the religious right who feel they have a vested interest in not letting "the gays" erode their religion. I actually think (though ignorant) that these particular Christians should have a right to deny gays marriage in their churches. But the fact that the state won't allow homosexuals to get married in their courts is just ridiculous and unamerican.
Yeah I know I miss the days of REAL marriage, where a woman was sold to a man along with a donkey and 3 barrels of hay. God civilization has gone down the toilet since we stop doing that.
this makes me think of Lewis Black's stand up routine about "gay banditos" that don black trenchcoats and invade suburban homes at night, sodomizing each other, and destroying American families. So funny. Just type in "Lewis Black gay banditos" in youtube.
Someone else mentioned that they are reading "Marriage: a History" too, so I'd just like to point out that she (the author) says that marrying for love is a fairly new concept. Like, past 300 years or so. I believe the puritans brought that over with them (I could be wrong)? Marriage isn't even the same now as it was when my grandparents got married. I really cannot stand Huckabee.
i wonder if he's aware that the judeo-christian tradition started out as a polygamist one.
anyway, i've never really wanted to get married, but i've also never understood how a person who is fighting to be able to be married is somehow ruining the institution. oh right, wanting to be with the person you love IS detrimental to society.
"There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived."
There's never been a civilization that survived forever anyway. Western civ has had a good long run and managed to rejuvenate itself a couple of times, but it's getting long in the tooth again. Reality TV is indeed one symptom.
I don't remember the name or year, but there was a Supreme Court case that ruled that inherent in the right to marry is the right to marry the person you choose.
It was Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
That's right: 1967. Only 40 years ago (just celebrated th' anniversary, btw).
And remember: Lawrence v. Texas (the SCOTUS case that declared "anti-sodomy" laws are unconstitutional; i.e., being gay can no longer be against the law) was in 2003, only 4 years ago.
Huckabee is correct. Civilizations can be roughly divided into those that did not survive and those that still need a bit more time.
From cursory observations in western Wyoming, the basic family unit there consists of the owner in the front of a pickup truck and the dog in the rear; a typical social interaction has two pickup trucks standing next to each other, humans conversing in the front and dogs sniffing each other in the rear.
Now suppose that instead of the dog in the rear we put a human partner on the second seat in front. The whole logic breaks down.
"From cursory observations in western Wyoming, the basic family unit there consists of the owner in the front of a pickup truck and the dog in the rear; a typical social interaction has two pickup trucks standing next to each other, humans conversing in the front and dogs sniffing each other in the rear.
"Now suppose that instead of the dog in the rear we put a human partner on the second seat in front. The whole logic breaks down."
How about if instead of the pickup truck we put the human partner and the canine partner in an SUV?
Because Canada and Spain, and Massachusetts have all gone to shit, right?
No, that would be the U.S. economy in general, and in specific the red states.
There seems to be a direct correlation between Republican run and danger to constituents, whether life and limb (mine safety, food safety, toy safety, medication safety, etc.) and economic safety (foreclosures, massive deficits, anyone?)
I just read that Huckabee was adamant about isolating people with AIDS, and that homosexuals pose a health risk to the public when he was governor of Arkansas. What a class act.
"There seems to be a direct correlation between Republican run and danger to constituents, whether life and limb (mine safety, food safety, toy safety, medication safety, etc.) and economic safety (foreclosures, massive deficits, anyone?)"
what a nut job!
does he have any understanding of the historical development of the nuclear family and its inseparability from bourgeois culture and the rise of capitalism?
not being marxist, that's just the way it happened.
I think the REAL problem is that this country chose to turn a religious institution (marriage) into a state institution.
I always thought that marriage started off as a secular institution, and then churches appropriated it. Didn't someone upthread say something to that effect?
I actually think (though ignorant) that these particular Christians should have a right to deny gays marriage in their churches.
B/c of the separation of church and state, they *do* have the right not to recognize homosexual marriages. Catholic churches don't recognize marriage that occurs after divorce, unless you have your marriage annulled. Legalizing gay marriage would have no effect whatsoever on religious institutions. None. Which makes the argument absolutely moot.
Well according to that theory, shouldn't our society have collapsed when father's stopped selling/buying their daughter's off like hundreds of years ago in the western world? Or when we could have multi-cultural marriages? Or when we switched from mainly having a wide family structure to a nuclear family structure? Also it seems like globally marriage is viewed very differently in each culture, not the same. How come India who has had arranged marriages for years is still standing? Or the European countries who have allowed gay marriage to become legal?
"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague,"
"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."
He is so pro-life! I mean, look how much he cares about the quality of those already born! Look what a great person he is!
"Not allowing gay marriage is just another way to maintain male gender dominance in heteronormative marriage structures. "
Absolutely true.
Sadly, I doubt Huckabee himself would have any problem believing that either, even if he wouldn't say it out loud per se. He's probably proud to maintain male dominance.
Because Canada and Spain, and Massachusetts have all gone to shit, right?
In Huckabee's mind, yeah, probably they have.
He's probably proud to maintain male dominance.
Regardless of the validity of Huckabee's whacko historical theories, the thing we probably agree on is the relationship between conceptions of marriage and the way societies understand sexuality and gender. Since WE (here on feministing) aren't too happy about the current status of things, a reformulation of marriage toward a more open, flexible social institution seems like a step forward. But to people like Huckabee, it DOES mean "the end of the world as we know it," and that's not a welcome prospect to most conservatives.
So if we were to translate his argument as "there has never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means [without re-shaping that civilization over time]" he's probably onto something :).
Last time I checked, "allowing" deaf people to marry never destroyed a civilization, and I'm pretty sure that black/interracial marriages didn't, either.
What kind of crazy civilization-crushing powers do these homosexuals possess?!
E.J.Graff wrote another great book on the history of marriage...and all the changes. (Graff, What is Marriage for? Beacon press, 1999)
The right to marry is onee right all heterosexualks assume. The right to marry is one right we do not lose if convicted of a felony; if convicted you lose your right to vote while in jail, and in some states forever (can we say: Florida?)
That marriage is embedded in our concept of freedom (to choose to be in that institution) goes so far as allowing prisoners to marry (while in prison!)
Hannah Arendt believed that the right to choose whom to marry was more fundamental than the right to vote!
Yeah I live (have for my whole life) in Massachusetts and since gay marriage was legalized the state hasn't gone up in flames. Massachusetts also has one of the lowest rates of divorce...and we are one of the bluest states and rated in the top three for the smartest state....so we are doing ok, no fear!
all these mean republicans just need to go to some island and be mean so they rest of us can live in peace and love
and arent republicans supposed to be all about less government interference in one's own life...oh except for women's bodies and the rights of homosexuals...they def need all the government interence they can get
they only want less government because they don't want to give their money to the federal government to support services that actually help people, like say education and health care
i don't get how someone who claims to be "pro-life" can be anti- money for education and healthcare for children...nice
Me: BWAHAhaha! I at last have found the weapon to bring down the country!
Igor: Hmm what is it, nuclear bomb? Sharks with lasers attached to their heads? Giant robots!?
Me: No stupid! I'm going to.... MARRY ANOTHER WOMAN!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That'll teach 'em!
Igor: I'm confused, how will that bring about the destruction of the counrty?
Me: Easy! It will... uh, ... gay marriage will destroy.. uh, erm... Oh I know! It will make the closed minded people UNCOMFORTABLE! Then they will get the shiver shakes and fall over dead!
**
haha, I know, but that is how rediculous those people are. There is no reason for their opposition for equal rights.
sign up for the weekly
Comments
But if we let gays get married, they'll clog up the Club Wed gift registry at Target, which will trigger anomie among consumers! Mass chaos!
The only reason this is still an issue is that the Republican party is trying desperately to distract the American people from the reality of global politics so they can keep profiting off of the ignorance of the masses.
Posted by: nerdalert![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 04:20 PM
ooo samhita, i love your posts! quite thoughtful...can't say anything substantive except, "agreed."
Posted by: EverythingisImage![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 04:26 PM
"If conservatives want to keep marriage so traditional they should be thinking about reality TV shows that are anything but sacred, or divorce rates, which as Wanda Sykes says is the biggest threat to marriage-not gay marriage."
Trust me, Huckabee is thinking about that too. He successfully pushed for the creation of "Covenant Marriages" in Arkansas – a super-sized version of marriage that makes it much, much more difficult to get a divorce. He even renewed his own vows and entered a Covenant Marriage with his wife Janet in a public ceremony (all paid for by the tax payers of course).
Posted by: stinsonnick![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 04:31 PM
As an historian, I'm always utterly gobsmacked by the apparent total lack of understanding by people who argue for "tradition" that tradition changes over time and that the "traditional" marriage Huckabee is promoting is, as Samhita points out, only one of many, many relational contracts we human beings have come up with.
And the idea that any culture/community that has changed these traditions has disappeared? Priceless.
Posted by: annajcook![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 04:33 PM
Lets not forget that white Republicans were touting this same line of bullshit about marriage and family when interracial marriages were on the board. God never "intended" for the races to mix and what about those poor, poor mixed kids who wouldn't know what side they belonged to? White people would never accept them and it sucks to be black so best to keep to your own race.[/snark]
All we really have to do is look to the countries that have allowed gay marriage and see if they've imploded.
Oh wait, they haven't? Wow.
Posted by: UltraMagnus![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 04:44 PM
I like how it's Huckabee who says this crap. Wait, doesn't like setting rapists free despite multiple letters from his surviving victims about how he raped them at knifepoint and that he will kill next time, doesn't THAT destroy civilization or whatever?! No no i guess his idea of civilization is somewhere more along the lines of a society that harms women, gays, and anyone else who isn't white and male. Asshole.
Posted by: Marissa![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 05:03 PM
Huckabee fucking keeps getting better and better.. saying that changing so called traditions is needed for a decent society is retarded. If nothing ever changed we'd be burning everyone who was different than us at the stake. We would have seperate schools for whites and blacks. we would use bleeding as a cure for anything. society should be progressive because humans are progressive. although now I'm not so sure some of us are.. :P
Posted by: Kmari1222![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 05:11 PM
Word, UltraMagnus. I live in Canada, and from what I can tell, things are pretty much business as usual since gay people have been getting married... you know, no crumbling of civilization or whatnot. Funny that.
Posted by: cherylp![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 05:14 PM
I'm in the middle of reading Stephanie Coontz's "Marriage: A History", and she posits that the biggest change in marriage, globally/historically, was when we stopped marrying for primarily economic reasons and starting marrying for Twue Wuv. It's really interesting.
Posted by: RoseRed![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 05:39 PM
Do you think he's going to back track on this one like he did on the "raise your hand if you are a fucking mor-"..I mean "raise your hand if you do not believe in evolution" thing?
Posted by: PamelaV![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 05:53 PM
I think it's interesting that some Christians, who'll spend hours telling you about how merciful their god is, will turn around and say that the same god is punishing the nation (in some nonspecific manner) for the sins of the gays and the feminists. At least when Rome fell it was theologically consistent to say, "The Christians didn't worship our gods, so the gods got pissed and punished us."
Oh, and while we're on "traditional marriage," has anyone bothered explaining to Huckabee and his ilk that the Christian churches didn't perform marriages for the first few centuries? It was considered a civil matter, not a religious one. If God didn't care then, I can't imagine why he'd start now.
Posted by: Maggie![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 06:08 PM
Find the Facebook group entitled "Gay Marriage Killed the Dinosaurs." You'll see that the gays have already destroyed one noble civilization!
Posted by: Hops![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 06:56 PM
I don't remember the name or year, but there was a Supreme Court case that ruled that inherent in the right to marry is the right to marry the person you choose. Interracial marriage case. So, we have indeed redefined marriage and society did not crumble, and we addressed the right to marry as a right. Pretty much a dead debate if you ask me.
Posted by: Persephone![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 07:37 PM
It just seems like this should be so easy to debunk that there's no reason for it to be such a big debate. It's amazing how stubborn people are. But really, I think part of the gay marriage campaign should be to take quotes like Huckabee's and compare them to quotes from people who argued against the legalization of miscegenation and from people who argued against outlawing wife battery and marital rape. We should be asking people: what if people had listened to the Huckabees of the world when those issues were being argued? Besides the fact that OBVIOUSLY gay marriage does not make societies crumble and disappear. I don't know how someone could even attempt to say that when we have a state in our own country that allows them. I mean if Huckabee doesn't know what Canada is, fine, but surely he's heard of Massachusetts?
What really gets me is how people seem to think there's some kind of marriage currency that will undergo inflation if gay marriage is legalized. It will "devalue" traditional marriage! What, you mean the only reason you value your marriage is that it puts you in some sort of hetero-only club? Really?
Posted by: judgesnineteen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 08:28 PM
If you thought "civilization" was synonymous with "patriarchy," you'd be freepin' out too.
Posted by: derrp![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 08:42 PM
And I was grilled when I expressed that I reject marriage because it's an institution that confines women to a role that doesn't benefit them at all and because the fact that homosexuals can't get married shows that marriage is less about love and commitment and more about appearances and tax breaks. And, honestly, rejecting marriage completely is the only way to protest against this institution. I'm sure that'll cheese Huckabee off.
Posted by: FEMily!![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 09:51 PM
Not allowing gay marriage is just another way to maintain male gender dominance in heteronormative marriage structures.
WORD.
Posted by: dinogirl![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 11:22 PM
There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived.
Mmm. Of course. That's why the English still provide their daughters with dowries when they marry.
Posted by: EG![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 7, 2007 11:27 PM
sigh. im from canada. one of those countries that have allowed this gay "marriage" to take place.
and. lettmetellya.
everything has fallen apart since. we still have federally funded abortion. covered under a national healthcare!!! (WTF??? pay for if yourselves!).
we also dont help countries in need of democracy! we are the true definition of a society that is CRUMBLING. CRUMBLING.
(just in case the sarcasm was only in my head - it's there)
Posted by: merichan![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 12:20 AM
I am so tired of the gay marriage debate. I think the REAL problem is that this country chose to turn a religious institution (marriage) into a state institution. So now, instead of gay couples simply having to fight the government (a task in itself) they are also having to fight the religious right who feel they have a vested interest in not letting "the gays" erode their religion. I actually think (though ignorant) that these particular Christians should have a right to deny gays marriage in their churches. But the fact that the state won't allow homosexuals to get married in their courts is just ridiculous and unamerican.
Posted by: Samantha![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 01:22 AM
Yeah I know I miss the days of REAL marriage, where a woman was sold to a man along with a donkey and 3 barrels of hay. God civilization has gone down the toilet since we stop doing that.
Posted by: WinnieMcGovens![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 03:02 AM
This reminded me of a Rick Mercer Report episode I saw a few years ago, but sadly I can't embed the video.
Go to http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/backissues.php?season=2 and scroll down to "Week of February 7, 2005." Watch "Denmark: Beautiful, Serene, and Out of Control." It's tiny, but oh so worth it.
For an additional treat, under "Week of February 14, 2005," there's a video called "I believe in a traditional family."
Posted by: prairielily![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 03:52 AM
this makes me think of Lewis Black's stand up routine about "gay banditos" that don black trenchcoats and invade suburban homes at night, sodomizing each other, and destroying American families. So funny. Just type in "Lewis Black gay banditos" in youtube.
Posted by: kacey![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 05:08 AM
Someone else mentioned that they are reading "Marriage: a History" too, so I'd just like to point out that she (the author) says that marrying for love is a fairly new concept. Like, past 300 years or so. I believe the puritans brought that over with them (I could be wrong)? Marriage isn't even the same now as it was when my grandparents got married. I really cannot stand Huckabee.
Posted by: Staar84![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 07:20 AM
Watch "Denmark: Beautiful, Serene, and Out of Control." It's tiny, but oh so worth it.
"Denmark: Come for the fjords, stay for the moral chaos."
Thanks, prairielily, for the link! That was a fun way to wake up this morning :).
Posted by: annajcook![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 08:30 AM
i wonder if he's aware that the judeo-christian tradition started out as a polygamist one.
anyway, i've never really wanted to get married, but i've also never understood how a person who is fighting to be able to be married is somehow ruining the institution. oh right, wanting to be with the person you love IS detrimental to society.
Posted by: seriously_trying![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 09:14 AM
"There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived."
There's never been a civilization that survived forever anyway. Western civ has had a good long run and managed to rejuvenate itself a couple of times, but it's getting long in the tooth again. Reality TV is indeed one symptom.
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 09:56 AM
Huckabee is absolutely priceless. As an historian, I've never heard of a civilization that crumbled *because of* changing marriage laws.
Just more senseless rhetoric from the religious right, I suppose. Someone get this guy a history book.
Posted by: Ariane![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 10:30 AM
seriously_trying: "i wonder if he's aware that the judeo-christian tradition started out as a polygamist one."
Maybe not -- but I'll bet Mitt Romney is. ;-)
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 10:42 AM
I don't remember the name or year, but there was a Supreme Court case that ruled that inherent in the right to marry is the right to marry the person you choose.
It was Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
That's right: 1967. Only 40 years ago (just celebrated th' anniversary, btw).
And remember: Lawrence v. Texas (the SCOTUS case that declared "anti-sodomy" laws are unconstitutional; i.e., being gay can no longer be against the law) was in 2003, only 4 years ago.
We have a long way to go.
Posted by: S.G.E.W.![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 12:46 PM
Huckabee is correct. Civilizations can be roughly divided into those that did not survive and those that still need a bit more time.
From cursory observations in western Wyoming, the basic family unit there consists of the owner in the front of a pickup truck and the dog in the rear; a typical social interaction has two pickup trucks standing next to each other, humans conversing in the front and dogs sniffing each other in the rear.
Now suppose that instead of the dog in the rear we put a human partner on the second seat in front. The whole logic breaks down.
Posted by: piotrek![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 03:28 PM
I love that I just read every comment in this thread and every single one was passionately pro-gay marriage.
If only life were like this blog.
Posted by: soisaystomabel![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 04:24 PM
"From cursory observations in western Wyoming, the basic family unit there consists of the owner in the front of a pickup truck and the dog in the rear; a typical social interaction has two pickup trucks standing next to each other, humans conversing in the front and dogs sniffing each other in the rear.
"Now suppose that instead of the dog in the rear we put a human partner on the second seat in front. The whole logic breaks down."
How about if instead of the pickup truck we put the human partner and the canine partner in an SUV?
Posted by: Mina![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 04:37 PM
Because Canada and Spain, and Massachusetts have all gone to shit, right?
No, that would be the U.S. economy in general, and in specific the red states.
There seems to be a direct correlation between Republican run and danger to constituents, whether life and limb (mine safety, food safety, toy safety, medication safety, etc.) and economic safety (foreclosures, massive deficits, anyone?)
Posted by: jochre![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 05:57 PM
I just read that Huckabee was adamant about isolating people with AIDS, and that homosexuals pose a health risk to the public when he was governor of Arkansas. What a class act.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hxRYbsXLsJm203WhovQF-FKimvlgD8TDF4GO0
Posted by: FEMily!![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 06:03 PM
I love that I just read every comment in this thread and every single one was passionately pro-gay marriage.
If only life were like this blog.
Oh, heck yeah. :-)
Decline of civilization saywhatnow? Kiinda made me throw up in my mouth a little...
Posted by: ily![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 06:08 PM
"There seems to be a direct correlation between Republican run and danger to constituents, whether life and limb (mine safety, food safety, toy safety, medication safety, etc.) and economic safety (foreclosures, massive deficits, anyone?)"
Nitpick: Aren't some of those more gloabl issues involving other countries' administrations too? For example,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6949294.stm
BTW, I looked up more on Dr. Dora Akunyili after reading the above article and found this interesting one too: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1124289,00.html
Posted by: Mina![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 06:41 PM
what a nut job!
does he have any understanding of the historical development of the nuclear family and its inseparability from bourgeois culture and the rise of capitalism?
not being marxist, that's just the way it happened.
Posted by: invisible_hand![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 06:42 PM
I think the REAL problem is that this country chose to turn a religious institution (marriage) into a state institution.
I always thought that marriage started off as a secular institution, and then churches appropriated it. Didn't someone upthread say something to that effect?
I actually think (though ignorant) that these particular Christians should have a right to deny gays marriage in their churches.
B/c of the separation of church and state, they *do* have the right not to recognize homosexual marriages. Catholic churches don't recognize marriage that occurs after divorce, unless you have your marriage annulled. Legalizing gay marriage would have no effect whatsoever on religious institutions. None. Which makes the argument absolutely moot.
Posted by: kissmypineapple![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 07:16 PM
Well according to that theory, shouldn't our society have collapsed when father's stopped selling/buying their daughter's off like hundreds of years ago in the western world? Or when we could have multi-cultural marriages? Or when we switched from mainly having a wide family structure to a nuclear family structure? Also it seems like globally marriage is viewed very differently in each culture, not the same. How come India who has had arranged marriages for years is still standing? Or the European countries who have allowed gay marriage to become legal?
Posted by: dhsredhead![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 07:37 PM
IT GETS BETTER!
Sorry for the caps.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1692878,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-nation
"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague,"
"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."
He is so pro-life! I mean, look how much he cares about the quality of those already born! Look what a great person he is!
Posted by: PamelaV![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 8, 2007 08:06 PM
And this guy thought he could reform the Arkansas school system.
Somebody beat this man with a large world history book, please.
Posted by: tyro![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 9, 2007 02:24 PM
"Not allowing gay marriage is just another way to maintain male gender dominance in heteronormative marriage structures. "
Absolutely true.
Sadly, I doubt Huckabee himself would have any problem believing that either, even if he wouldn't say it out loud per se. He's probably proud to maintain male dominance.
Posted by: rosehiptea![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 9, 2007 02:41 PM
Because Canada and Spain, and Massachusetts have all gone to shit, right?
In Huckabee's mind, yeah, probably they have.
He's probably proud to maintain male dominance.
Regardless of the validity of Huckabee's whacko historical theories, the thing we probably agree on is the relationship between conceptions of marriage and the way societies understand sexuality and gender. Since WE (here on feministing) aren't too happy about the current status of things, a reformulation of marriage toward a more open, flexible social institution seems like a step forward. But to people like Huckabee, it DOES mean "the end of the world as we know it," and that's not a welcome prospect to most conservatives.
So if we were to translate his argument as "there has never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means [without re-shaping that civilization over time]" he's probably onto something :).
Posted by: annajcook![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 9, 2007 03:08 PM
Last time I checked, "allowing" deaf people to marry never destroyed a civilization, and I'm pretty sure that black/interracial marriages didn't, either.
What kind of crazy civilization-crushing powers do these homosexuals possess?!
Posted by: Michelle![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 9, 2007 07:20 PM
E.J.Graff wrote another great book on the history of marriage...and all the changes. (Graff, What is Marriage for? Beacon press, 1999)
The right to marry is onee right all heterosexualks assume. The right to marry is one right we do not lose if convicted of a felony; if convicted you lose your right to vote while in jail, and in some states forever (can we say: Florida?)
That marriage is embedded in our concept of freedom (to choose to be in that institution) goes so far as allowing prisoners to marry (while in prison!)
Hannah Arendt believed that the right to choose whom to marry was more fundamental than the right to vote!
ciao
Posted by: feminista54![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 9, 2007 08:47 PM
Yeah I live (have for my whole life) in Massachusetts and since gay marriage was legalized the state hasn't gone up in flames. Massachusetts also has one of the lowest rates of divorce...and we are one of the bluest states and rated in the top three for the smartest state....so we are doing ok, no fear!
all these mean republicans just need to go to some island and be mean so they rest of us can live in peace and love
Posted by: madonna85![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 9, 2007 09:21 PM
and arent republicans supposed to be all about less government interference in one's own life...oh except for women's bodies and the rights of homosexuals...they def need all the government interence they can get
they only want less government because they don't want to give their money to the federal government to support services that actually help people, like say education and health care
i don't get how someone who claims to be "pro-life" can be anti- money for education and healthcare for children...nice
Posted by: madonna85![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 9, 2007 09:28 PM
*In an eeevil lair*
Me: BWAHAhaha! I at last have found the weapon to bring down the country!
Igor: Hmm what is it, nuclear bomb? Sharks with lasers attached to their heads? Giant robots!?
Me: No stupid! I'm going to.... MARRY ANOTHER WOMAN!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That'll teach 'em!
Igor: I'm confused, how will that bring about the destruction of the counrty?
Me: Easy! It will... uh, ... gay marriage will destroy.. uh, erm... Oh I know! It will make the closed minded people UNCOMFORTABLE! Then they will get the shiver shakes and fall over dead!
**
haha, I know, but that is how rediculous those people are. There is no reason for their opposition for equal rights.
Posted by: TheEngineGal![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 10, 2007 06:14 PM