News pieces of interest (to me, at least)

[ivyblossom]

MPs Should Back Same-Sex marriage: Politicians, regardless of their party affiliation, have an obligation to protect the equality of all Canadians.


Gay Marriage Restores Institution to Pagan Roots: The religious right forgets that the early Christian church refused to condone the pagan practice of marriage and did not bestow its blessing until 1753, when Lord Harwicke's Act required a cleric's blessing for a marriage to be legal in England. Until that time, the church ignored marriage, leaving it to common law. (I have to say I think this person is citing pagan-happy non-history and not actual history, but whatever.)

Church Braces for Gay Fallout: In the wake of Tuesday's confirmation of the Episcopal Church's — and the world's — first openly gay Anglican bishop, there is talk of schism, separation and defection in the air.

I'm not sure if this is a fabulous article really, but the opener is what makes me want to cite it: Kowtowing is No Sign of Strength: `In its relations with the U.S. these days, Canada feels a bit like a woman having an affair with the big rich man next door. She depends on him and he's a good provider, but he has a roving eye and a lot of other offers." In this view, Canada is as an anxious mistress, fearful that her wealthy playboy-lover will wander off, attracted by some more curvaceous, accommodating starlet. It's not a very flattering image, highlighting Canada's vulnerability and dependence — so perhaps it's not surprising that the lines were written by an American (former New York Times columnist James Reston). Given the rest of the paper, I think Canada should be a woman having an affair with the big rich woman next door, quite frankly.

Comments

[meninaiscrazy.livejournal.com]

Given the rest of the paper, I think Canada should be a woman having an affair with the big rich woman next door, quite frankly.

Yeah, like that version better. LOL

All the articles are interesting. Thanks

[eleanorb.livejournal.com]

The religious right forgets that the early Christian church refused to condone the pagan practice of marriage and did not bestow its blessing until 1753, when Lord Harwicke's Act required a cleric's blessing for a marriage to be legal in England. Until that time, the church ignored marriage, leaving it to common law. (I have to say I think this person is citing pagan-happy non-history and not actual history, but whatever.)

You're quite right that this is rubbish. Hardwickes's Act was to stop 'runaway marriages' (those which did not conform to the religious norms such as banns etc. and were carried out by defrocked priests in places like prisons e.g The Fleet) Church marriages in my own family for instance are recorded as far back as the middle 1500's and only don't exist further back because the records have been destroyed. The Established church has always regulated marriage - the big change came in 1837 in Britain when there had to be civil registration in addition to religious registration.

[ias.livejournal.com]

Well said (with the added bonus of negating my need to go up several flights of stairs in this horribly hot weather to drag down various social history books to quote references to say much the same thing)

[eleanorb.livejournal.com]

I had the advantage of already being up with my books :-) It would have been far too hot to look it up if I wasn't :-)

[idlerat.livejournal.com]

The idea that the church itself didn't perform marriages or get involved is preposterous. However it is true that in more marginal areas (wales, scotland) marriages performed outside the church, sometimes through traditional customs, were widely recognized as valid through the 17th c.

[eleanorb.livejournal.com]

And of course if you take in the whole non-conformist and other religions sector there's a lot the Established Church didn't regulate - though of course someone did their records are often immaculate compared to the CoE, I really wish I had Jewish ancestors :-)

[idlerat.livejournal.com]

their records are often immaculate compared to the CoE, I really wish I had Jewish ancestors :-)

Really? You mean the Jews in England, such as they were between 12th and 18th c? Kept good records? Exciting news; v. curious.

[eleanorb.livejournal.com]

Fantastic records apparently since they don't just give the name of the couple who are marrying but the whole family tree - just to ensure that they weren't too closely related already.

[1anonymous1.livejournal.com]

Yeah baby.;)

*blows kisses*


Oh yeah, did you ever work out the yahoo?

[alongtheway.livejournal.com]

What a great metaphor. I am a proud citizen of my mistress-country, even if she does need a sugar daddy.

[doll-mouth.livejournal.com]

Well the church approves of same-sex marriage now, right? I was looking at a copy of the New York Times as I was getting lunch and that was what I think an article said... ::sigh:: that's nice (not sarcastic) I'm just scared of the backlash that is coming...:bites nails::

[undeadjournal.livejournal.com]

What's also complete rubbish in that article is the idea that the slang term "faggot" for gay men originated in the practice of burning gay people at the stake.

There are various suggested origins, but the term is quite recent and nothing to do with burning anything or anyone. See http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfaggot.html for a good summary.

[watchful-enmity.livejournal.com]

You have 10 days to delete this post or it's the fandom penis enlarger O'd00m for you.