You know, I’m reading a wonderful article about Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the two pioneering women who were the first to marry in San Francisco, and near the end there’s a segment describing a wedding — and it occurs to me that the words of the ceremony, whether in a church or a city hall, are very telling. They don’t mention any of the cynical reasons for marriage that the right wing claims they want to defend. Instead, they say things like:
Do you promise to love and comfort each other, honor and keep each other in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer, for better or for worse, and be faithful to each other as long as you both shall live?
Now, a sample Biblical vow with definitely fundamentalist undertones includes a smarmy little line indicating that the woman must “submit” to the man, but still says nothing about requiring children:
I, _____, take you, ______, to be my wedded wife. With deepest joy I receive you into my life that together we may be one. As is Christ to His body, the church, so I will be to you a loving and faithful husband. Always will I perform my headship over you even as Christ does over me, knowing that His Lordship is one of the holiest desires for my life. I promise you my deepest love, my fullest devotion, my tenderest care. I promise I will live first unto God rather than others or even you. I promise that I will lead our lives into a life of faith and hope in Christ Jesus. Ever honoring God’s guidance by His spirit through the Word, And so throughout life, no matter what may lie ahead of us, I pledge to you my life as a loving and faithful husband.
That last page has 13 sample vows for ministers. Not one of them mentions that marriage was devised by God to ensure procreation, etc. etc. etc. Not one even mentions children at all. Nothing new there, the right wing always comes up with spurious arguments. Perhaps the next step is to re-write the bible entirely. “We just discovered a new translation!” they’ll trumpet.
