Monday, February 09, 2004

A great discovery in anthropology

Religious busybodies of Massachusetts (oops, sorry, I mean leaders of over 3000 religious institutions) have issued a joint statement in support of the constitutional amendment initiative. The amendment, if passed (which it probably won't) would define marriage as an union between one man and one woman. The "need" for an amendment like that has surfaced because the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has ruled that the state cannot discriminate between homosexuals and heterosexuals in this matter and that the legislators have 6 months to legalize gay marriage. You can read the full text of the statement here.

They say:

"We stand together today, as religious and academic leaders, and as citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to affirm a common and deeply-held conviction: Marriage must be defined in our civil law as the union of one man and one woman. Each of the traditions we represent has long upheld the institution of marriage as a unique bond between a man and a woman, a bond which is the very foundation of the family and of our society.

This understanding of marriage is not, however, primarily a religious doctrine. It is based on common sense and human reason. It has been shared by every human culture for thousands of years. The marriage of one man and one woman is the basis for family life, into which children are born, nourished, and educated. This understanding of marriage and family predates and precedes the authority of the state."

Hello, folks? Hello, fucking homemade anthropologists? Do you ever even read your own holy books? I don't even dare to hope that you ever read State Department's human rights reports to see which countries still have polygamy. Hello, Islamic Council of New England - how can you even say with a straight face that marriage as a union between one man and one woman has been shared by every human culture for thousands of years? How many wives did your prophet have again? Gee, at least the Mormons have had the good grace not to sign that paper.


No comments: