What Would Sappho Say?
Lectori Salutem! or L.S. (Greetings to the Reader!)
Before you read this know I am a great supporter of the institution of marriage as I grew up in a family of only a few divorces (I can count on one hand) among my immediate family, all my cousins and second cousins, aunts and uncles and that is at least 100 people. Did I mention they are all they embodiment of love? Oh, and this will be a three part-er so as not to be overwhelmingly long.
PART ONE
I hate to get into this so soon but the political side in me is just dying to get out and I just want to set the record straight for all those Christian Conservatives that won’t be reading my blog but you guys might run into from time to time. So let’s take a look at the perpetuated lie the GAY MARRIAGE will ruin the sanctity of marriage that has been going on for at least the last 2009 years since the birth of Jesus Christ, the savior. I’ll take our little lesson for today back a little bit further just to really make the messages about the origins of marriage in civilized society perfectly clear. I guarantee the length of this blog will be well worth the read as you will have facts to throw at your anti-marriage family, friends and acquaintances that will tear their arguments to shreds!!!! SO I BEG YOU TO STAY WITH MY HISTORY LESSON AND PASS IT ON TO ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS (as I hope you do all my blogs). KNOWLEDGE IS POWER MY SAPPHIC SISTERS AND WELCOME READERS.
We’ll start first with the Religious Right’s core belief that came to fruition under George W. under the guise of DOMA – the Defense of Marriage Act. The law denies federal recognition of same-sex "marriage" and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Obama has pledged to work to repeal the law. Their righteousness for fighting for this law was that by allowing gays and lesbians equal rights of married individuals under the law would destroy the very fabric of the sanctity of marriage which has been based on a one man, one woman policy for the means or procreation in God’s image as He intended things to be. Since homosexuals could not procreate and certainly were not included in this holy sacrament bestowed by the church, they were simply out to kill 3000 years of marital law and the bond that held the family unit together.
Did anyone but me start to remember back to those history lessons in high school and remember a little something about the buying and selling of wives as property? I mean, it still goes on today in some countries and we migrated from that direction so the origins of matrimony might not have been so HOLY after all. In fact, well before Christ, (we’ll just go back as far as the Greeks to prove a point) love was a many splendored and manly thing. That is, men took mates with each other most commonly and a bride was simply used as a way to secure property or stature in the community. If a woman’s father died with no male heirs and that child was already married, she could and often would be forced into a divorce and submitted to marriage of her closest male heir to keep the property in the family. Love was not a concern in these times between a man and his wife. It was a contract to keep or increase the status quo of the joining families.
The Romans really turned up the charm by adding wife-swapping for political gain. A perfect example is someone many of you may remember from Dante’s Divine Comedy. As the greeter of souls in purgatory in the novels, Cato the Younger from the 1st century BC has stood the test of time as an ethical, stubborn, tenacious man with moral integrity in all areas MEN. His story of his marriages is neither unique nor emotional as was customary for the period. Initially, Cato had his sights on a well-bred, aristocratic woman (can anyone say horse?) but unfortunately her father had already entered into a contract with another man’s father. He would have to find another specimen.
He did and married a woman named Atilia that passed his criteria of status and breeding and they went about the business of producing heirs – a male heir to be exact to carry on the father’s precise name. A few years and two children later, a son and the wife of the famous “Et tu, Brute,” Brutus, that assassinated Julius Ceasar, Cato divorced her for unseemly behavior. Yes, I said unseemly behavior. He remarried a woman named Marcia and had a few more children with her over the next years. One of his good friends and colleagues inquired about marrying his daughter years later as he wanted to be better connected politically to the Cato clan.
Cato, seeing this man as 30 years older than his daughter and his daughter already married to a convenient political ally (not that having her divorce and remarry wasn’t frequent), he decided since his wife Marcia had already bore him children, he would offer her to his companion and friend. They divorced and the marriage lasted until Cato’s friend died at which time Marcia returned to Cato and scholars disagree as to whether Cato and Marcia remarried or not. This, however, was the great sanctity of marriage in the Roman times that continued AFTER JESUS into the early Christian movement until approximately the 6th century, AD.
Thus, ends part one. Stay tuned for the early Christian era.
Much Love.
Inspired By Sappho’s Muse
MUSIC OF THE DAY
Since this blog is so long, I’ll just let the music speak for itself.
At Seventeen Janis Ian
Galileo Indigo Girls
QUOTE OF THE DAY
Marriage is a wonderful institution...but who wants to live in an institution?
Groucho Marx
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)






4 comments:
OK, you got a catholic to take the bait!
What does any of what the "pagans" did in their marriages have to do with the christian/judeo concept of marriage that we christian conservatives believe in?
And which culture sold wives? woman and concubines I've heard of ; but educate me as to which sold their wives as I must have been out that day in HS.
quick google search reveals present day india, the farmers are so devestated that they are selling their wives to their debt holders
DEM
Did I title this article the History of Christian Marriage? No. But if you don't believe that the exchanging of good and services to include money and property that can be nicely called a dowry wasn't crudely used by early Christians, even the sainted Catholics, you'll have to dig a little deeper into your history for it reeks of it. Do you not remember the part in History class where the King decreed whom should and could marry whom and at what cost that arrangement would be to the family of the bride's? The same thing happened among any aristocratic families way into the 18th century and continues to this day in other countries. Just because a woman is not put on a chopping block and sold to the highest bidder does not mean she freely gave herself to the man she loved and no money or forms of monetary goods were exchanged by her parents to rid themselves of her. On the other hand, any Anglofile knows that well before and certainly after the Protestant Reformation the royal family certainly bought and sold their daughters for political favors which came with monetary gifts and there was little, if any discussion, with the daughters as to their wishes in a mate. It was a done deal, so to speak!
issue is with the comment "the buying and selling of wives as property"
yes arranged marriages took place in England (and the US)in the past amoungst christians and it continues to happen in England and in the United States in the Moslem and Indian populations today. additionally it would be likely to assume that the oriental cultures may still practice marriage arrangements.
Then in the past as now the Brides were not forced to accept this arrangement but the alternative would have been to disgrace the family and be shunned or join a convent....... many arrangements were made of love... would you not want your daughter to obtain the best marriage and social standing, would it not behoove the offspring of said marriage.
Dowries were not a price paid to unload
an undisirable daughter they were to help a husband to feed and protect his family, and to give the wife and children some support if he were to die. This arrangement like everything else in life can and I am sure had been ABUSED.
Ok that out of the way, the Real issue.
This Conservative Catholic has no issue with two people of the same sex loving and caring for each other and wanting to make a commitment and a life with each other.Furthermore I have no issue with them having children. I feel in many circumstances they may actually make better parents for Homosexuals actually have to plan and think about having children- they acutually make a concientious decision based on love whereas there are an enormous amount of heterosexual parents who have no clue as to why they wanted children and nothing in them to give a child in short there are alot of Hetero's out there that should have been sterilized.
I have NO issue with making it Legal by way of Civil Union as many Heterosexuals do; My issue is with the Term Marriage. Marriage is a Sacrement of the Church and there are rules concerning the sacrament of Marriage.
I was married in the Catholic church and I divorced my husband in civil court but am still married to him in the church and precluded from remarriage until I obtain an annulment(I could easily obtain one and was even offered help from the priest and Free of charge (it depends on your circumstances)
side track:
Furthermore I am sure that a good many Catholic Priests are probably Gay by birth, and just like heterosexual Priests they abstain from marriage and sexual relations. they are Good Men of Faith with much love for God and Man (no pun intended)and I am glad to have known them.
I wrestle with this constantly , I am an American and do believe that All should have the same rights in this country of ours and Gays should be able to enter into civil union just like heterosexuals and have the same benefits (which you do now in NY: insurance taxes etc) I just have the issue of the word Marriage as its a Sacrament... for that matter I have issue with hetero's who have civil union and call it Marriage.
On the bright side there will be alot of happy Lawyers out there when gays are allowed to legally marry... why should heteros have all the fun of divorce
Well.. basically you made my point for me, hit the nail on the head, built your own coffin, etc in this argument when you said "for that matter I have issue with the hetero's who have civil union and call it Marriage". The reason I say this is that no one, I mean YOU too was out there protesting these HETERO'S from getting their heretic-ical "marriages" or those damn Protestants (Methodists, Baptists, etc) and pretty much all other religions who I am sure you also have a beef with for they take marriage so lightly because they do NOT think of marriage as a sacrament. The only religion that is in step with the Catholic is the Greek Orthodox's but they call sacraments mysteria (what they were called in the original text as Greek is the language the holy text of the time was written in before it was translated into Latin. Somehow the word mystery had no known word in the Latin language and that word became sacramentum - simultaneous spiritual and physical.
The Anglican's are fluid with what they refer to as sacraments: they, like almost every Christian religion believe in only two sacraments as Martin Luther introduced in the Protestant Reformation - baptism and the Eucharist. Why? Because these are the only things done by Jesus in the New Testament that are unique to all Christians and thus ordained by the gospels. Not all Christians have to get married, be ordained, be anointed, confess to a priest, etc. according to other faiths and therefore those are NOT sacraments.
My God, it took the Catholic Church around 1500 years to truly decide what was and was not a sacrament (look up your history on holy sacraments and the Council of Trent in 1523).
That is only part of the point- that you have decided you are right about the issue of the holy sacrament of marriage and all other religions are wrong. The real point is who gives you the corner on the word marriage? If the Methodists or the Episcopalians decide that there religion has interpreted the scripture to allow gay marriage to take place, who are you to run their show? FINE. I am perfectly clear that there will not be a man and a man or a woman and a woman walking arm in arm out of a Catholic Church in my lifetime but don't be so quick to dig your heels in.
Have you read all the passages in the Old Testament where it reinforces woman's subservience to man? How a woman should leave the city for the week of her period and not come back till she's clean? In the same place where "Man shall not lie with man as with woman..." a farmer shall not plant different crops together or let different species of animals in the same field. They are both an abomination. Are you the one who chose which one we let fall by the way side and which one we still picket their funerals and kill them in Hate Crimes for being who they feel they were born to be?
This argument will never be over because I have just as much right to marry as you do and more ammo stockpiled to defend my position as I have been waiting for someone to try and defend this position that is nothing but bigoted.
Don't worry. I'm never coming to a church that doesn't approve it, but there will be some that will. Hell, there already are some so get used to hearing use say that word, "married" because whether we get the law passed or not, if a church allows us a same sex union then we are wife and wife no matter whether you want it to happen or not.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comments today. No need for a Sapphic love poem, your thoughts are much more useful to me. :)