Saturday, November 29, 2008
Balance of Ridicule
You might think that an organization that for most of the first of its not yet two centuries of existence was the world’s most notorious proponent of startlingly unconventional forms of wedded bliss would be a little reticent about issuing orders to the rest of humanity specifying exactly who should be legally entitled to marry whom. But no. The Mormon Church—as anyone can attest who has ever answered the doorbell to find a pair of polite, persistent, adolescent “elders” standing on the stoop, tracts in hand—does not count reticence among the cardinal virtues. Nor does its own history of matrimonial excess bring a blush to its cheek.Not likely to appear in the pages of the New Yorker.
UPDATE: A commenter points out that some portion of New Yorker editors actually believe polygamy is officially endorsed by the Mormon Church. Tsk, tsk, how provincial and ignorant!
SECOND UPDATE: Have we invaded Iran yet?
3 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Sat Nov 29, 12:35:00 PM:
You might think that an organization that for most of its first two centuries of existence was one of the world’s most notorious proponents of startlingly unconventional forms of institutionalized racism would be a little reticent about issuing orders to the rest of humanity specifying exactly how they should be legally entitled to treat whom. But no. The United States—as anyone can attest who has ever answered the doorbell to find a pair of polite, persistent, adolescent soldiers standing on the stoop, rifles in hand—does not count reticence among the cardinal virtues. Nor does its own history of injustice bring a blush to its cheek.
Be cause it's utterly impossible for an organization's morality to evolve over time, and hypocritical to even try.
Just ask all the blacks in the Democratic party.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sat Nov 29, 01:26:00 PM:
[I]ssuing orders to the rest of humanity specifying exactly who should be legally entitled to marry whom.
Orders? For the rest of humanity?
Geez, and here I thought the proposition voted upon (ordered?) by the people only changed the definition of marriage in the California state constitution.
The gay folks living in Uzbekistan will not be happy.
Legally entitled?
No, legally recognized.
Same sex adults in California may marry one another at any time. They may call each other their spouse and tell others they are married.
The only difference is that the state of California will not recognize that marriage as equal to an opposite sex union and extend the same privileges and benefits to them.
Anyway, we all knew this. Including the less-than-honest Mr. Hertzberg.
By Escort81, at
Sat Nov 29, 01:51:00 PM:
First off, anyone who was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter (as Hertzberg was) trying to take the moral high ground on any topic connected to religion is a real stretch. Carter was elected in 1976 (barely) in part because he was a Democrat following Nixon's Watergate resignation, and in part because his Baptist faith put a centrist face on an otherwise incompetent approach to governing.
Second, having lived in Utah for a few years in the 1980s, I'd stipulate to the fact that there are aspects of the LDS faith that are "outside of the mainstream" of Christianity, whatever that means. Does that mean that members of that faith forfeit their right to voice their opinions on political matters that deal directly with core tennants of their religious practice?
Third,
"most of the first of its not yet two centuries of existence was the world’s most notorious proponent of startlingly unconventional forms of wedded bliss"
is factually incorrect, to the extent "most" means a majority (greater than half, 51%+). The Church was founded in 1830, with plural marriage following shortly thereafter, and in 1904, the church president disavowed polygamy in front of the U.S. Congress. That is, at most, 74 years of church-approved polygamy, and in fact only a minority of males were allowed to have multiple wives during that time, so the total number of such marriages was not that large, and was almost certainly less than the number of polygamous marriages under the remnants of the Ottoman Empire during the same period. Since 1904, 104 years have passed, and 104>74, hence, "most" = wrong. Obviously, Rik Hertzberg is not subject to the layers of fact checkers and editors that everyone else at the New Yorker is -- oh wait, he is an editor.
I happen to think that if gays want to be as miserable as everyone else in marriage, knock yourselves out. I thought that going back 8 or 10 years, it would have been tactically wiser for gays to be content with civil unions and not push for full marriage, because there would be inevitable backlash. There are clear "separate but equal" problems with civil unions, but, hey, take what the defense gives you, and in another generation, you get everything you want. It's an overly pragmatic approach, I suppose.
