| i liked this. |
[05 Nov 2008|10:38pm] |
Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
by Jeff Goode (Californian)
About a decade ago, as a young playwright, I was hired to write a script for the Renaissance Festival of Kansas City. It was a period piece about knights and jousts and intrigues of the court, building up to a lavish royal wedding between a prince and a princess, restoring peace to the troubled land.
This was one of my first professional writing assignments, so I was really excited about doing all the research and making sure that everything was historically accurate, especially the royal wedding which needed to follow all the traditions exactly.
Over a summer of research, I learned a lot of surprising facts about the history of marriage and weddings, but by far the most shocking discovery of all was that the tradition of marriage-as-we-know-it simply did not exist in those days. Almost everything we have come to associate with marriage and weddings -- the white dress, the holy vows, the fancy cake and the birdseed -- dates back a mere 50 or 100 years at the most. In many cases less.
And the handful of traditions that do go back farther than that are, frankly, horrifying. The tossing of the garter, for example, evolved from a 14th Century tradition of ripping the clothing off of the bride's body as she left the ceremony in order to "loosen her up" for the wedding night. Wedding guests fought over the choicest bits of undergarment, with the garter being the greatest prize.
Savvy brides got in the habit of carrying extra garters in their bodice to throw to the male guests in hopes of escaping the ceremony with some shred of modesty intact!
It turns out that marriage, in days of old, was a barbaric custom which was little more than a crude exchange of livestock at its most civilized, and a little less than ritualized abduction at its worst. That's why you'll find no reference to white weddings in the Bible, or the union of one man and one woman. Because up until fairly recently, there was nothing religious about it.
You will of course find plenty of biblical bigamy, practiced by even the most godly of heroes-- Noah, Abraham, David, Solomon -- because that's what marriage was in those days. Even in more enlightened New Testament times, the only wedding worth mentioning (the one at Cana) is notable only for the miraculous amount of wine consumed.
In the 21st Century, we've heard a lot about the sanctity of marriage, as if that were something that has been around forever, but in reality the phrase was invented in 2004. Google it for yourself and see if you can find a single reference to the "sanctity of marriage" before the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions in that state. The proverbial Sanctity of Marriage sprang into being because opponents of gay marriage needed a logical reason to overturn an established legal precedent. And the only thing that trumps the Constitution is God himself.
Unfortunately, God is still pretty new to the whole marriage game (or he might have made an honest woman out of the Virgin Mary, am I right? Try the veal!)
The truth is that marriage has always been more a secular tradition rather than a religious one. Up until the early Renaissance, in fact, couples were traditionally married on the church's front doorstep, because wedding ceremonies were considered too vulgar to be performed inside the building: After all, there was implied sex in the vows and shameless public displays of affection. No clergyman in his right mind would have allowed such an unholy abomination on the premises.
But as times changed, ideas and attitudes about marriage also changed. So when people became religious, matrimony became holy. When people became nudists, clothing became optional. And so on throughout history.
And the wonderful thing about the institution of marriage -- the reason it has remained strong and relevant through thousands of years of ever-changing times -- is its unique ability to change with those times.
Marriage is, and always has been, a constantly evolving tradition that never fails to incorporate the latest shifts in culture and climate, changing social habits, fashions and even fads. (Because, seriously, that chicken dance is not in the Bible.
)
Thus, in the 1800s when the sole purpose of marriage was procreation and housekeeping, marriage between an older man and a hard-working tween girl was considered perfectly normal. Today we call it pedophilia.
For thousands of years marriage was essentially a business transaction between the parents of the bride and groom. But in the last century or so, we've finally seen the triumph of this new-fangled notion that marriage should be about a loving relationship between two consenting adults.
Followers of the Mormon faith can tell you that the traditions of their forefathers included a devout belief that polygamy was appropriate and sanctified. But modern Mormons generally don't support that vision of happiness for their daughters.
And during the Civil Rights era, when opponents of interracial marriage tried to pass laws making such couples illegal, we came to realize that they, too, were wrong in trying to redefine marriage to prevent those newfound relationships.
Always marriage has triumphed by becoming a timely celebration of our society, rather than a backlash against it. It's strange, then, to see "tradition" used as a weapon against change, when change is the source of all its greatest traditions.
Just ask the white dress: In 1840, Queen Victoria of England married Prince Albert wearing a beautiful white lace dress -- in defiance of tradition -- in order to promote the sale of English lace! The image was so powerful that practically overnight the white wedding gown became de rigueur for the well-heeled bride. And then it became de rigueur for every bride.
By the dawn of the 20th Century, the white dress had also inexplicably come to symbolize chastity. (Even though blue was traditionally the color of virginity --"something borrowed, something blue...")
And the new equation of white with virginity eventually achieved such a rigid orthodoxy that older readers may remember a time when wedding guests who happened to know that the bride was not perfectly pure would have felt a moral obligation to demand that she change into something off-white before walking down the aisle.
Fortunately, as cultural norms eased during the Sexual Revolution, a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy took hold where all brides were required to wear white regardless of their virtue and the less said about it the better.
In recent years, as a generation of divorcees have remarried and a generation of young people have entered wedlock with some degree of "experience", the pretense of a connection between literal virginity and the bridal gown has become entirely obsolete. A colorful journey for a custom which has always seemed iron clad, even as it was evolving over time.
And not all traditions have to do with changing sexual standards. The long-time custom of pelting the newlyweds with birdseed did not exist before the 1970s when animal-lovers realized that songbirds were bloating on dried rice that they found on the ground after the former custom.
Economic times have caused families to rethink the age-old convention of the bride's father paying for the entire ceremony -- a last vestige of the days of dowries when a young man had to be bribed to take a free-loading daughter off her parents' hands -- that well-established custom has gradually given way to a more humane approach to sharing the financial burden.
Even religious traditions of marriage have experienced constant metamorphosis over the years. As more interfaith couples have wed, we have seen the emergence of multi-disciplinary ceremonies where couples have chosen not to follow the out-dated tradition of rejecting one or both of their faiths as a prerequisite of holy matrimony.
One of the most beautiful weddings I ever attended was between a young Jewish fellow and his Catholic fiancé, whose mother was born in France. The ceremony was performed by both a rabbi and a priest with intertwining vows in English, Latin, Hebrew and French. A perfect expression of the union of their two families, yet one which would have been unthinkable just a generation before.
But, again, marriage has such a long history of changing with the ever-changing times, that the last thing we should expect from it is to stop growing and changing. We know today that marriage is not a rote ritual handed down by God to Adam & Eve and preserved verbatim for thousands of years. It is, rather, an expression of how each community, each culture, and each faith, chooses to celebrate the joining of loved ones who have decided to make a life together.
Christians do not expect Jesus to be central to a Buddhist wedding, nor do Jews refuse to acknowledge Lutheran unions because they didn't include a reading from the Torah. Marriage is what we each make of it. And that's the way it always should be.
Perhaps the greatest irony of the traditional marriage argument is that it seeks to preserve a singular tradition that has, in fact, never existed at any point in history.
Because, honestly, which traditional definition of marriage do we want our Constitution to protect?
...The one from Book of Genesis when family values meant multiple wives and concubines?
...Or the marriages of the Middle Ages when women were traded like cattle and weddings were too bawdy for church?
...Since this is America, should we preserve marriage as it existed in 1776 when arranged marriages were still commonplace?
...Or the traditions of 1850 when California became a state and marriage was customarily between one man and one woman-or-girl of age 11 and up?
...Or are we really seeking to protect a more modern vision of traditional marriage, say from the 1950s when it was illegal for whites to wed blacks or Hispanics?
...Or the traditional marriage of the late 1960s when couples were routinely excommunicated for marrying outside their faith?
No, the truth of the matter is, that we're trying to preserve traditional marriage the way it "was and always has been" during a very narrow period in the late 70s / early 80s - just before most of us found out that gays even existed: Between one man and one woman of legal age and willing consent. Regardless of race or religion (within reason). Plus the chicken dance and the birdseed. Those are okay.
But there's something profoundly disturbing about amending the Constitution to define anything about the 1970s as "the way God intended it.
"
|
|
| and my jacket is lost to the oblivion of hipsters. |
[12 Oct 2008|02:08pm] |
|
Kyle came to visit me this weekend. Well, is visiting. It's been....drunken. I've been waiting for this kiddo to come visit me forever!! We are taking full advantage of the cities. Last night I even got him to go dancing. Well he danced for a minute and then was out. If you know Kyle, you know how funny this is. Today may have to be slightly tamer since i'm nursing my hangover. That's the second one this week, when usually I have one MAYBE once a month. I'm going to have to baby my liver after this weekend.
|
|
| if i had 3 wishes..... |
[26 Sep 2008|08:11am] |
1. Any harm that a person would intentionally or order someone to do onto another human would immediately have the same done onto them.
2. All harmful forms of energy(ex: coal plants, nuclear plant, oil drilling) would be instantly removed from the earth and replaced with renewable energy sources.
3. No person could get pregnant without the knowing consent of both parties involved.
I know these wouldn't solve the world issue, but it would definitely take a huge chunk out of them.
|
|
| vampirely drained |
[19 Mar 2008|11:12am] |
Traveling and drinking probably shouldn't go together. Especially when you want to walk around cities and hike through country. We've enjoyed Ireland for 2 days now. The driving is CAOS. I haven't had to do any yet, but it's turned me into a horrible backseat driver.
Totally haven't taken many photos at all. In fact at this moment I don't think I know exactly where my camara is. ah well. that's just the way it goes.
|
|
| Chicago May |
[19 Jan 2008|08:37am] |
|
I've been reading a book about a notorious crook from the late 1800- early 1900's written by an Irish author. It is full of facts and history from all over the world, since this crook was a world traveler. Although I've been slightly informed of the rough life and dire situations of the emigrants of these times, it has definitely opened my eyes. One fact that I thought was interesting, and I believe most of you will think is just as appalling I think it, was prior to 1890 the age of consent in New York City was 10!!!!!!!! 10. And then they finally changed it to 16. Ugh, NY was definitely not a ladies town. But the best part about reading all this history and facts and reasonings is that a lot of it involves my Irish heritage. And it's really gotten me thinking about my grandparents and their parents and what they may have had to deal with. And their hopes and dreams for coming to the new world and their let downs and disappointments. And it makes me wonder if they ever wanted to or had the opportunity to go back and be the "returned immigrant". It makes me very curious to dig up that family tree my mom spent so much time putting together. Especially since I'm headed back to the homeland in just a couple months here. In class yesterday we had to play a name game, I identified myself as AmberJean with Irish/Norwegian background. I've never really thought of my heritage as defining me before. It was always just something that was running through the blood of people that came far before me. I was always just AmberJean from wisconsin. Somewhere back there was Irish and Norwegians, but not me I've just been a mutt-ed north american.
|
|
| moments |
[12 Jan 2008|09:03am] |
|
2 days ago, i was driving to work and saw 2 incredible things that i desperately wished i had a camera for. One was a car that was painted as though it was completely covered in kucinich stickers. The other was a man that looked like santa claus in sweats on crutches. I had my phone with me but my memory was full, and it's really hard to delete and what not when you are driving. so now the memories are only mine. But it started me thinking that i really need to start carrying my camera with me again. I use to be obsessed with catching those moments and now my camera mostly sits on a shelf getting dusty.
|
|
| squish them all~~~splat~~~ |
[15 Jun 2007|10:37am] |
BUGSSSSSS! they are really bugging me!!!! We bug bombed our room and vacuumed everything we could and i still got bug bites last night. grrrr. damn dem bugz. i want them all dead. or at least not biting me.
Now I have a terrific mess to clean up, after destroying my room.
Augie's left me after only a night of hanging out since i returned. But it's kind of nice to have me time. Though i'm really missing him!!
|
|
|
[24 May 2007|09:46am] |
the awesome scooter and the awesome man who got me it!!! oh and my awesome new hair do. i chopped it all of, it's been a while since i've done that and i think this is the shortest i've ever been.
|
|
| hahah, this is a comment i made on lj a year ago |
[30 Nov 2005|11:35am] |
|
but i'm doing espana first. i feel like a dunst swallowed by american culture with our head held high even though we're the stupid ones who expect everyone else to be smart so we don't have to learn to communicate with them.
|
|
| Santa is a creepy stalker |
[23 Dec 2004|10:23pm] |
Oh! You better watch out,
You better not cry,
You better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
Santa Claus is coming to town!
that's right boys and girls he's coming to get you. better fucken watch out and do what the man says cause he coming to town!
He sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake.
He knows if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!
He's looking in the fucken window at you right now. and you better fucken watch out or he's gonna get you. get you good. get you while you're asleep or while you're awake, it don't matter he's gonna get you. cause he's out that fucken window right now. or peering at the camera he's set up above your bed.
damn X-MAS songs...i'm so sick of them. if i was a kid i'd be scared of x-mas songs. they really make santa out to be creepy guy. that's right kiddo's santa is a creepy dude.
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
rotatesanity's journal