MARRIAGE AND THE GENERATION OF SOCIETY: Tom Cerber

A lot of the arguments over same sex marriage ignore the central question of what marriage *does* for a society. Not just for individuals, as many opponents of ss-m say it's for procreation, while supporters claim it's for recognition and psychological well-being for homosexuals.

I want to take a different angle. What is the good of marriage for a society, and one -- by its very nature -- wants to maintain itself over the course of time.

From this perspective, marriage is the primary institution by which a society perpetuates itself. Not only in terms of adding/sustaining the number of bodies and workers in a society, but also to transmit the values of a society from one generation to the next. Immigration would be another candidate, especially in sustaining the number of bodies and workers. However, I think asking immigrants to be responsible for transmitting the values of their NEW society is to be unjust toward them, especially since, as newcomers, they're leaving their old countries behind precisely to enter into, and to learn from, the new values of liberty, freedom, etc., that a liberal society is meant to stand for. ...

We need to address the reasons why our individualism has led us to regard marriage from one in which we suffer (in the religious and physical sense) the duties and responsibilities of being stewards of the one we love and the next generation. Love begets children and/or it begets speeches, as Socrates says, but one thing for certain is that it begets, it does not make contracts. Of course, our national media and political leadership are too crude to understand that difference the soul that begets and the will that contracts.

more
posted by Eve at 8:20 PM VOTE 0 comments

THE FUTURE OF FAMILY LAW: Excerpts from the new report.

[More excerpts Monday. Email joshua@imapp.org if you want a copy.... --Eve]

Clashing Models of Marriage
What are the competing models of marriage that are at odds in today's family law debates?

1. The Conjugal View
The model of marriage broadly reflected in law and culture until quite recently can be called the "conjugal model." Marriage in this view is a sexual union of husband and wife who promise each other sexual fidelity, mutual caretaking, and the joint parenting of any children they may have. Conjugal marriage is fundamentally child-centered. Theorists of liberal democracy from John Locke to John Rawls have underlined the important, generative work that conjugal marriage does for society. This normative model of marriage is under attack in these recent reports.

2. The Close Relationship Model
This competing vision of marriage has emerged in recent decades. In it, marriage is a private relationship between two people created primarily to satisfy the needs of adults. If children arise from the union, so be it, but marriage and children are not seen as intrinsically connected. ...

This view of marriage radically sidelines the main feature that makes marriage unique and important as a social institution--that is, the attempt to bridge sex difference and struggle with the generative power of opposite-sex unions, including the reality that children often arise (intentionally and not) from heterosexual unions. ...

...A "close relationships" culture fails to acknowledge fundamental facts of human life: the fact of sexual difference; the enormous tide of heterosexual desire in human life; the procreativity of male-female bonding; the unique social ecology of parenting which offers children bonds with their biological parents; and the rich genealogical nature of family ties and the web of intergenerational supports for family members that they provide.

more info here
posted by Eve at 4:39 PM VOTE 0 comments

iMAPP: THE FUTURE OF FAMILY LAW: Maggie Gallagher

What next for marriage and family law? Three parents? Four spouses? Or no marriage at all? Prof. Dan Cere of McGill University, one of the smartest marriage minds I know, lays out the directions that family law debate is taking us in a trully brilliant piece. (You may have seen an early version in the very last issue of The Public Interest).

Email joshua@imapp.org if you'd like a copy of this new report, co-published by iMAPP. It is the product of a new Council on Family Law chaired by Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School. Council members include Don Browning of the University of Chicago Divinity School, Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Maura Corrigan, David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values and yours truly.
posted by Eve at 9:01 AM VOTE 0 comments

HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE--A UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION: Katherine Kersten

...Why does marriage exist? Because sex between men and women makes babies: the next generation. Getting men and women to stay together to raise these children is a tricky business, but the long-term survival of society depends on it.

Men and women tend to complement each other in vital ways. Both common sense and long tradition tell us that marriage is the best way of binding fathers to the mothers of their children, for the benefit of all.

Social science bears out common sense here. Kids with a married mom and dad have the best chance of flourishing on every conceivable measure, from avoiding juvenile delinquency and out-of-wedlock births to forming successful marriages themselves.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage insist that family structure isn't important. So long as a child has support from two loving adults, it doesn't matter if they're a mom and a dad or two moms.

Tell that to Star Parker, a black social commentator with a special interest in our ravaged inner cities, where traditional marriage has broken down. "Most children in the inner city," she says, "have two loving adults: a mom and a grandmother. Two loving adults aren't enough. Kids need a mom and a dad."

But how will Tom and Ed's marriage hurt Sue and Bill's?

Obviously, I won't divorce my husband if same-sex marriage becomes legal. But a radical redefinition of marriage -- recasting it as a matter of "love between individuals" rather than the social institution that preserves the nuclear family -- will change what's been called our "marriage culture," with major consequences for our children and grandchildren.

more
posted by Eve at 3:41 PM VOTE 0 comments

GROUPS PETITION IN UTAH LESBIAN PARENT CASE: From PlanetOut Network

A nasty lesbian parenting battle is about to get nastier as the Utah Supreme Court prepares to sort out the escalating hostilities between a conservative Christian mother and her former partner. ...

Cheryl Pike Barlow and Keri Lynne Jones have a history that has become familiar to those who follow adversarial lesbian parenting cases. Both women decided to start a family, and an anonymous sperm donor was selected with both parents in mind. While Barlow was pregnant, the couple went to Vermont to sign up for the relatively new status of civil union partners. Although Barlow gave birth to a daughter, it was agreed that Jones would have their second child, which never happened. Initially, Barlow stayed home with their daughter, while Jones worked.

After about two years, however, the relationship broke apart, the separation exacerbated in this case by Barlow's conversion to conservative Christianity. For almost a year, as Jones struggled to articulate and enforce her legal rights, Barlow kept the child isolated from her other mother. Finally, with the help of Salt Lake City attorney Lauren Barros and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Jones won two key victories late last year.

First, the trial court ruled that Jones was a de facto parent, having been operating in the household as a parent until the breakup. Second, the judge awarded limited visitation, and ordered Jones to pay some child support. The visitation was to start with two days a month and increase to every other weekend once their daughter and Jones had a chance to get to know each other again. ...

This week, the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed briefs before the Utah justices, asking that the lower court rulings be upheld once and for all and that Keri Jones be given a chance to resume her role as mother. Central to their argument is the fact that the status of "de facto parent" has nothing to do with the relationship between one parent and the other, and everything to do with the relationship between the parent and the child. Jones is a de facto parent, not because of any ties she may or may not have to Barlow, but because of her parental relationship with her daughter, a relationship that was proven in trial court.

more
posted by Eve at 3:39 PM VOTE 0 comments

CALIF. SSM BILL HEADED FOR DEFEAT AMID "SOARING" RHETORIC: From the San Francisco Chronicle

A bill to legalize same-sex marriage appeared headed for defeat in the state Assembly late Wednesday after a historic, at times personal debate that touched on themes of personal liberty and societal values.

The bill, AB19 by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, was failing 35- 37 -- six votes shy of a needed majority. Eight lawmakers, all of them Democrats, including Northern California legislators Alberto Torrico of Fremont and Simon Salinas of Salinas, abstained, and five Democrats from the Central Valley and San Diego voted against the measure. ...

The vote marked the first time a state legislative body had voted on whether to give marriage licenses to gays and lesbians, and comes amid a national political climate in which gay marriage has proved a defining issue for elected officials from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to President Bush. ...

But the debate revealed only a tiny middle ground for Leno to mine. Instead, the hour of short speeches by members of both parties reflected the deep divisions on the issue. With same-sex marriage wending its way through state courts -- and the federal judiciary yet to firmly weigh in on the issue -- the Assembly revealed itself Wednesday as a microcosm of a socially polarized society, unable to agree on everything from the definition of marriage to the role of government should play in defining it.

more
posted by Eve at 3:36 PM VOTE 0 comments

CANADIAN SSM LAW BY SUMMER, LIBERALS SAY: From the National Post

The federal government told Liberal MPs yesterday it will push same-sex marriage legislation through Parliament before a summer recess, prompting critics to charge the Liberals are ignoring public complaints about the controversial bill. ...

The unexpected development took the bill's opponents by surprise, with at least one group expressing surprise the Conservatives appear to be ready to concede the fight. ...

The bill will make Canada one of only three countries to legally recognize same-sex marriage. Court rulings in seven provinces and one territory have already declared that denial of legal marriage to gays and lesbians violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ...

Philip Horgan, president of the Catholic Civil Rights League, who also testified at the committee this week, warned of dire consequences should the bill pass so quickly: "It's going to be an issue for every candidate in every riding."

He predicted priests and ministers of all religions will consider giving up their provincially issued marriage licences and begin performing marriage ceremonies for members of their faith under their individual church rules.

"We've already seen a lot of clergy give up their licences," he said. "They continue to perform marriages, but for legal purposes, people will be getting married at city hall."

more
posted by Eve at 3:32 PM VOTE 0 comments

WHEN YOU'RE DONE HERE,

be sure to add Family Scholars to your bookmarks. The site is really jumping today.
posted by Eve at 8:47 PM VOTE 0 comments

MORE KIDS, MORE ORGANIZATION: From the Washington Post

...What for her is summed up as "never a dull moment" is, for most other parents she meets, baffling. Seven children? As family size has shrunk, so has the number of parents with the knowledge acquired from years of raising lots of children. Parents today have launched an entire industry -- which includes handbooks, parenting coaches and "Super Nanny" -- because they feel stressed by the demands of raising their one or two children.

Which is why, maybe, parents of smaller families might have something to learn from those raising a large brood.

For more than a year, I've been placing ads on Web site message boards asking people to tell me what they've learned as parents of at least four children. The responses, most of them from mothers, cover practical areas like managing laundry, cooking, cleaning, shopping and scheduling as well as the more philosophical -- tips on the best way to make sure everyone's needs are met, your marriage is stable, and happiness and security are the norm.

For example, mother-of-four Kimberly Jordan from Tse Bonito, N.M., says her main advice -- aside from being flexible -- is to "multiply the normal time it takes to accomplish something by the number of kids who are home." For example, she writes, "folding two loads of laundry: 15 minutes X 4 kids = 1 hour . . . I find that I'm a lot less stressed if I schedule myself according to that rule."

Jane Trudeau of Murphy, Tex., a mom of five, writes that it's "very important for every child to learn many household skills, such as cooking, laundry and cooking. Not every night, but often, my kids are in the kitchen helping me cook dinner. And that will increase as they get older." ...

Having a strong marriage is important for all families but is absolutely critical when so many children are counting on you. The advice parents of big families give, over and over again, is to take time to have fun, just the two of you, on a regular basis.

more
posted by Eve at 8:43 PM VOTE 0 comments

UNWED CHILDBEARING: Maggie Gallagher

According to new 2002 data from the National Survey of Family Growth, 65 percent of teen girls and 50 percent of teen boys say it's okay to have a child without being married. (PDF)
posted by Eve at 10:24 AM VOTE 0 comments

BEYOND EQUALITY AND LIBERTY: Dale Carpenter

[Important piece. --Eve]

...Marriage is the perfect example of why we've hit this wall. Marriage is neither egalitarian nor libertarian. It is practically the opposite of these things and that is why appeals to anti-discrimination principles and individual rights fall flat.

Consider first how inegalitarian marriage is. Marriage, by law and custom, is judgmental. It says that some ways of living are better than others. Some relationships are better than others. Sex within marriage is better for people than sex outside of it. Monogamy is better than promiscuity. People should make babies when they are married, but not when they are not. Children are better off raised by two people than by a single person or by three people or by a commune.

Marriage gives to some relationships, but not to any others, an array of social support, benefits, and legal protections. In other words, marriage creates status hierarchies that are antithetical to the liberal egalitarianism that has dominated the gay civil rights movement for almost 40 years. ...

Marriage is founded on neither equality nor liberty. It is in some ways the negation of these. It is a way of binding people together in a union that is thought to benefit the couple, any children they raise, and the community around them, to an extent that other relationships simply do not. That's why it is a social institution. It is shaped by and helps to nurture the society in which it arises.

If we are to get gay marriage, we must be able to appeal to the bulk of the country that properly understands marriage in this way. We must argue for it not primarily on the basis of anti-discrimination principles, or on the basis of individual liberty, but on the basis of community. It is like nothing else we've fought for.

more
posted by Eve at 2:56 PM VOTE 0 comments

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

replying to Elizabeth Marquardt's "My Daddy's Name Is Donor" op-ed.
posted by Eve at 2:48 PM VOTE 0 comments

A FAQ ON THE U.K.'S CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS

is here
posted by Eve at 2:47 PM VOTE 0 comments

CONSTITUTIONAL DREAMING: From the Boston Globe

[Yes, we are related--he's my dad. --Eve]

...Many liberals and progressives, who tend to see the Constitution as designed for the very purpose of protecting the rights and liberties of minorities, take it as a given that courts are the only reliable defenders of unpopular rights. As participants at the Yale conference imagined the day when "we'll have our people on the bench," as one put it, a wish list of legal changes emerged: an end to the death penalty and to the disenfranchisement of ex-felons, reductions in sentences of drug offenders, strong defense of the rights of immigrants and foreign nationals, and protection of civil liberties in wartime. Some spoke for more restraints on the executive branch and applauded recent Supreme Court rulings against presidential power to hold "enemy combatants" in detention without trial. ...

Of course, all of this can be easily caricatured by conservatives, with their ready complaints about "legislating from the bench." But while there are certainly those on the left who look for inspiration to court rulings like the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision last year on same-sex marriage, there are also those who advocate for a "popular constitutionalism," which seeks to revive the tradition of Jeffersonian democrats and early-20th-century Progressives, who distrusted the power of judges and pushed for legislative victories. In recent years scholars such as Mark Tushnet of Georgetown University and Stanford Law dean Larry D. Kramer have dusted off the argument that, as Felix Frankfurter put it in the 1920s, "the real battles of liberalism are not won in the Supreme Court." ...

While few other scholars go so far as to challenge judicial review, Sunstein does advocate a "judicial minimalism," which he describes as "giving the democratic process wide room to maneuver." After all, he emphasizes, Roosevelt wanted the "second Bill of Rights" to be pushed through Congress, not written into the Constitution itself. And at Yale, Sunstein caused a good deal of grumbling by questioning the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade, and even went so far as to suggest that progressives should stop looking to the Warren Court and Brown v. Board of Education as their model for judicial intervention.

Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, was one of several at Yale who found that notion troubling. "There are a lot of things that can't be done through the political system," she said in an interview. In the 1950s, it was impossible to get school desegregation through Congress, she said. "The idea that we would have been better off waiting is, to me, kind of loopy."

more
posted by Eve at 2:41 PM VOTE 0 comments

CIVIL UNIONS DISMISS FATHERHOOD: Leslie K. Wolfgang

"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example," Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis famously wrote in 1928. By creating civil unions, the state now teaches that families with and without fathers are equally good. There have always been successful, loving families without fathers, but now the law tells us that men have nothing unique or special to offer that is worthy of encouragement, enforcement and protection by our society.

Some may applaud this as progressive and an example of our Yankee intellectual superiority, but I think it is a travesty for women and children who are already financially, physically and mentally struggling without a husband or father. Motherhood comes naturally, but fatherhood must be nurtured and supported by society. ...

Not only will there be fewer fathers if the state succumbs to gender relativism, but replacing fathers with legions of lesbians is not proved to be good for children. And "proved to be good for children" is the standard we should have used before creating civil unions. According to the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, the long-term social science research regarding children raised in same-gender households is nonexistent or flawed, suffering from misrepresentative samples, non-standard measures and self-reporting.

more
posted by Eve at 2:38 PM VOTE 0 comments

WATCHING NEW LOVE AS IT SEARS THE BRAIN: From the New York Times

New love can look for all the world like mental illness, a blend of mania, dementia and obsession that cuts people off from friends and family and prompts out-of-character behavior -- compulsive phone calling, serenades, yelling from rooftops -- that could almost be mistaken for psychosis.

Now for the first time, neuroscientists have produced brain scan images of this fevered activity, before it settles into the wine and roses phase of romance or the joint holiday card routines of long-term commitment.

In an analysis of the images appearing today in The Journal of Neurophysiology, researchers in New York and New Jersey argue that romantic love is a biological urge distinct from sexual arousal.

It is closer in its neural profile to drives like hunger, thirst or drug craving, the researchers assert, than to emotional states like excitement or affection. As a relationship deepens, the brain scans suggest, the neural activity associated with romantic love alters slightly, and in some cases primes areas deep in the primitive brain that are involved in long-term attachment. ...

Brain imaging technology cannot read people's minds, experts caution, and a phenomenon as many sided and socially influenced as love transcends simple computer graphics, like those produced by the technique used in the study, called functional M.R.I. ...

In an earlier functional M.R.I. study of romance, published in 2000, researchers at University College London monitored brain activity in young men and women who had been in relationships for about two years. The brain images, also taken while participants looked at photos of their beloved, showed activation in many of the same areas found in the new study -- but significantly less so, in the region correlated with passionate love, she said.

In the new study, the researchers also saw individual differences in their group of smitten lovers, based on how long the participants had been in the relationships. Compared with the students who were in the first weeks of a new love, those who had been paired off for a year or more showed significantly more activity in an area of the brain linked to long-term commitment.

more
posted by Eve at 2:34 PM VOTE 0 comments

WHO CREATES MARRIAGE?

[The state? The Times of London? Some other entity entirely? ...A thought prompted by the "gay Anglican clergy civil partnerships" threads, and this post specifically, from an anonymous commenter here. --Eve]

Um, er . . . reading the comments here makes me think some of you who pride yourselves in not being "taken in" by the "big media" are guilty of exactly that.

It is the article, not the new law, that calls these relationships "marriage." It is the article's slant, not what the bishop's actually said, that is causing a ruckus.

If the bishops of the C of E have done anything, they have upheld the traditional view of marriage by insisting that anyone who gets such a civil partnership not act as if they were married, i.e., not have sexual relations with their civil partner. The only other things they could do would be to a) condemn the law, which would be inneffectual, and / or b) try to police who was living under whose roof in the vicarage. Frankly, I think they should go for b, and in fact I think it may come to that, but really, other than a and b, what are you expecting them to do? Lead mass protests?

more
posted by Eve at 8:23 AM VOTE 0 comments

AND BABY MAKES CHAOS: From the Sydney Morning Herald

[You have to register, but it's free. Link via Family Scholars. --Eve]

Victorian wet nurses, rentboys, global greed and explicit sex. Ah, it must be a play by Mark Ravenhill, the British playwright who shot to fame with his 1996 play Shopping and F***ing.

His 1998 work, Handbag (or The Importance of Being Someone), is the latest production from Focus Theatre, co-directed by its co-founders, Alice Livingstone and Pete Nettell.

Handbag explores the role of parenting in an age of complex sexuality, sperm banks, surrogacy and aspirational materialism.

"This is very much a morality play," Nettell says.

"What are we doing with our culture, particularly with babies, and our responsibility towards other people? We neglect that. We make choices for selfish reasons and we buy into this whole idea that we're just individuals. We're heading down a path of loss." ...

With much satire, witty language, explicit sex scenes and other examples of Ravenhill's brand of shock theatre, Handbag ostensibly focuses on lesbian couple Mauretta and Suzanne and their close friends, gay couple David and Tom.

Tom is the sperm donor; Mauretta is to be artificially inseminated. All four, somewhat delusionally in turns out, believe they can be the best modern-day parents possible.

more
posted by Eve at 5:56 PM VOTE 0 comments

SONGS ABOUT MARRIAGE: Emmy Chang

[For an explanation of this string of posts, click here. --Eve]

Re marriage songs, the first candidate is easy--"Kisses Sweeter Than Wine," which is on one of my Dietrich albums. The synchronized pairing-off of the offspring into marriages of their own, complete with two offspring each, at the end, is a bit much (or do I just think that because my own family is insane?!)--but still, I am all over this song's philosophy of love, in particular 1) because it explicitly disavows the "And they happily ever after" conception of a happy marriage ("They had lots of kids, and trouble, and pain...") and 2) because it explicitly links marriage/loyalty, with desire. The love described is obviously not only physical, but it also--and just as obviously--does have something to do with bodies and with the physical world ("...but you can bet your life he'd do it again / Because she had kisses sweeter than wine..."). Even when I first heard this song, five or so years ago, I remember thinking it described much the sort of
marriage I would want myself... I probably reacted so strongly because there
is so much propaganda out there in favor of the notions both that 1) it's not "true love" or "meant to be" if it's not idyllic 24/7 and 2) that love is 100 percent spiritual and disembodied, the reaction of one brain-in-a-vat to another brain-in-a-vat. (For both these things, I'd fault Dante and Beatrice--or fairy and folk tales in general--as much as I would "modernity" or Hollywood.) Here is the song as Dietrich sings it, though there are of course many versions:

There once was a young man who'd never been kissed
He got to thinking it over--how much he had missed
So he found a girl, he kissed her, and then
Well, wouldn't you know? He kissed her again

Because she had kisses sweeter than wine
She had, mmm, mmm, kisses sweeter than wine

He asked her to marry and be his good wife
And to make him happy the rest of his life
He begged and he pleaded like a natural man
And, wouldn't you know? She gave him her hand

Because she had kisses sweeter than wine
She had, mmm, mmm, kisses sweeter than wine

He worked mighty hard, and so did his wife
Working hand in hand to make a good life
There was corn in the field and wheat in the bin
And, wouldn't you know? He was the father of twins

Because she had kisses sweeter than wine
She had, mmm, mmm, kisses sweeter than wine

Their children numbered just about four
And they all had sweethearts knocking at the door
They all got married, didn't hesitate
Before long he was the grandfather of eight

Because she had kisses sweeter than wine
She had, mmm, mmm, kisses sweeter than wine

Now he is old and ready to go
He gets to thinking what happened a long time ago
They had lots of kids, and trouble, and pain
But you can bet your life he'd do it again

Because she had kisses sweeter than wine
She had, mmm, mmm, kisses sweeter than wine
posted by Eve at 5:52 PM VOTE 0 comments

SONGS ABOUT MARRIAGE: An anonyreader

[Oh wow. If I got started on Elvis Costello--or on country music in general--I don't think I'd stop. Am big fan of both EC and GJ. --Eve]

Um, I'm not sending the entire lyric as could probably be found on a website because I have this concern (possible scruple) about copyright, but Elvis Costello covered "Good Year for the Roses" which was apparently previously recorded by George Jones. This is just from my memory: "After three, four years of marriage, it's the first time that you haven't made the bed. I guess the reason we're not talking, there's not much we've left to say we haven't said (?) While a million thoughts go raging/ringing? through my mind I found I haven't said a word, from the bedroom a familiar sound -- our baby's crying goes unheard." The funny thing to me is that the earlier lyrics don't sound like they're from a song about marriage: "I can hardly bear the sight of lipstick on the cigarettes there in your ashtray, lying cold the way you left them, but at least your lips caressed them as they died," and the same about an unfinished cup of coffee: "but at least you thought you wanted it, that's so much more than I can say for me." Perhaps I've missed something but the song as a whole seems to be about one couple at one point in time, and I guess that reflects an ambiguous view of marriage -- the first lyrics I quoted which are definitely
about marriage could sound more like the usual "yeah, people get bored of each other, marriage is a drag" business. But it sounds like there's still longing along with the lack of communication, not mere "loveless" boredom...
posted by Eve at 5:50 PM VOTE 0 comments

SONGS ABOUT MARRIAGE: Rose Daly

[Excerpts. --Eve]

First, the usual version in folk/traditional songs: the girl reproaches her lover for his falseness and he (more or less) says "More fool you for believing me!"

The Blacksmith
A blacksmith courted me, nine months or better
He bravely won my heart, wrote me a letter
With his hammer in his hand, he looked quite clever
And if I was with my love, I'd live forever

But where is my love gone, with his cheeks like roses
And his good black billycock on, all crowned with primroses
I'm afraid the scorching sun, will shine and burn his beauty
And if I was with my love, I'd do my duty

Strange news has come to town, strange news is carried
Strange news flies up and down, that my love he's married
I wish them both much joy though they can't hear me
And may God reward them well for the slighting of me

Don't you remember well, when you lay beside me
And you said you'd marry me and not deny me
If I said I'd marry you, it was only for to try you
But bring your witness love, and I'll not deny you

Oh witness have I none, save God almighty
And may He reward you well, for the slighting of me
Her lips grew pale and wan, it made her poor heart tremble
To think she loved a one and he proved deceitful

Then there's the version of "As I Roved Out" as sung by Brian Kennedy, which is slightly unusual in that, as well as the girl reproaching the lover who threw her over for a better prospect (and regretting the surrender of her virginity to him, as signified by the gift of the 'diamond ring'), the man regrets it as well:

"AS I ROVED OUT"

As I roved out one bright May morning
To view the meadows and flowers gay
Whom should I spy but my own true love
As she sat under yon willow tree.

I took off my hat and I did salute her
I did salute her most courteously
When she turned around well the tears fell from her
Saying false young man you have deluded me.

A diamond ring I own I gave you
A diamond ring to wear on your right hand
But the vows you made love you went and broke them
And married the lassie who had the land

If I married the lassie that had the land my love
It's that I'll rue till the day I die
When misfortune falls no man can shun it
I was blindfolded that I'll never deny

Now at night when I go to my bed of slumber
The thought of my true love runs in my mind
When I turn around to embrace my darling
Instead of gold sure it is brass I find

And I wish the queen would call home her armies
From the West Indies, Amerikay, and Spain
And every man to his wedded woman
In hopes that you and I will meet again
posted by Eve at 5:46 PM VOTE 0 comments

SONGS ABOUT MARRIAGE: Paul Zadik

She moved through the fair

By Padraic Colum

Lots of versions of this -- don't know which is the original

My young love said to me my mother won't mind,
And my father won't slight you for your lack of kind,
And she stepped away from me and this she did say,
'It will not be long, love, till our wedding day.'

She stepped away from me, and moved through the fair,
And sadly I watched her, move here and move there,
Then she went homeward with one star awake -
As the swan in the evening moves over the lake.

The people were saying no two were e'er wed,
But one had a sorrow that never was said,
She went away from me with her goods and her gear,
And that was the last that I saw of my dear.

Last night she came to me, my dead love came in,
So softly she came that her feet made no din,
She laid her hand on me, and this she did say
'It will not be long, love, till our wedding day.'
posted by Eve at 5:44 PM VOTE 0 comments

SEXLESS GAY ANGLICAN CLERGY PARTNERSHIPS: Various reactions

Terry Mattingly, drily: "This compromise is really going to calm things down before that tense June 21 conclave that is supposed to sort out all of the loose ends about sacraments and sexuality (and major donations from the rich Episcopal Church in the United States)."

Peter T. Chattaway:

FWIW, this seems to me like a merger of two trains of thought that I have long associated with Tony Campolo and C.S. Lewis.

First--and this is from memory, so correct me if I am wrong on any point--in 20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid to Touch, Tony Campolo basically argued nearly 20 years ago that the Bible is against same-sex sexual activity, but not against friendships and emotional attachments etc. He figured it was wrong to expect gay people to be lonely, so he wanted there to be some way to recognize same-sex partnerships, provided that they were non-sexual. (And of course, virtually everyone I know would say this is really naive, and Campolo himself recognized this, but there you go...)

Second, in Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis advocated a strict separation between civil and religious understandings of marriage--a point he confirmed some years later when he married Joy Davidman twice, first in a civil ceremony that he considered spiritually meaningless, and then in religious ceremony before a priest. (Those who have seen any of the stage or film versions of Shadowlands will be familiar with this story.)

It would seem the Anglican Archbishop is trying to find a way to recognize the civil technicalities while separating them from the religious responsibilities, just as Lewis arguably did. And in doing so, it would seem he is trying to meet the emotional and social needs of gay clergy while holding them to biblical standards of sexual conduct, just as Campolo would prefer.

That's how it looks on paper, at any rate.

Stephen A. (excerpt):

The article in the Times says: "The bishops are trying to uphold the church doctrine of forbidding clergy from sex except in a full marriage. They accept, however, that the new law LEAVES THEM LITTLE CHOICE but to accept the right of gay clergy to have civil partners." (My bolding.)

+ Why do they have "little choice" to accept the right of male priests to marry other men? Surely a government cannot force them to permit this. Surely a Church can set its own policy on marriage for its clergy--right?

+ If the State CAN force a church to accept gay partners for priests, what CAN'T it force it to accept, or reject?

Victor Morton (excerpt):

As I say...it's perverse--a marriage that is categorically and by design sexless is almost a contradiction in terms. If sex isn't in the picture, what distinguishes marriage from friendship?

And to answer some of Steven A.'s questions...if marriage is understood as a civil institution at least in part (which is uncontroversial; and for "civil" unions, the civitas' lead role is practically true by definition), then it's not clear how a church can prevent persons from engaging in legal civil contracts. They can set marriage rules, true, as long as marriage is understood as partially the church's, but civil unions are closer to driver's licenses in that the church doesn't perform them or have anything to do with them. This is not saying the state can force the CofE to actually perform homosexual "marriages" (for now anyway; we’'l wait and see how greedy the gay activists get)...it's closer to the state allowing priests to have driver's licenses. And the CofE trying to find a way to live with it. And it HAS to find a way to live with it simply because as a state church with the monarch at its head, the CofE is not really structured to play a prophetic role against the British state. Its logic** is to express the nation, not to judge it.

all this and more, here
posted by Eve at 1:47 AM VOTE 0 comments

CHURCH OF ENGLAND TO LET GAY CLERGY "MARRY," BUT THEY MUST STAY CELIBATE: From the Times of London (quote marks in original, as England has "civil partnerships")

[Further delinking of sex, marriage, procreation, and childrearing. Or, as Foghorn Leghorn might say, "What'n Ah say what'n?!" --Eve]

HOMOSEXUAL priests in the Church of England will be allowed to "marry" their boyfriends under a proposal drawn up by senior bishops, led by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The decision ensures that gay and lesbian clergy who wish to register relationships under the new "civil partnerships" law -- giving them many of the tax and inheritance advantages of married couples -- will not lose their licences to be priests.

They will, however, have to give an assurance to their diocesan bishop that they will abstain from sex. The bishops are trying to uphold the church doctrine of forbidding clergy from sex except in a full marriage. They accept, however, that the new law leaves them little choice but to accept the right of gay clergy to have civil partners.

more
posted by Eve at 1:25 AM VOTE 0 comments