“My view is a society recognizes that the ideal setting for raising a child is when you have the benefit of two people working together and where one is male and one is female. I happen to believe that and that’s the reason that I think as a society we say,
‘You know what? We are going to call marriage what it has been called
for 6,000 years.'”
Can someone please ask Bishop Romney what he thinks happened 6.000 years ago? Oh, I forgot, he is a Mormon.
So I looked up the Mormon view of history. Their version of history beings with the Jaredites, a post Tower of Babel people who lived 5,ooo years ago.
can’t be the Jaredites!
Then I found this post by a devout Mormon saying that Genesis itself, the “7 days” was actually 7,000 years. That would date the creation at 13,000 years ago. 
can’t be the date of Genesis!
The I thought so more. What of Mitt meant the expulsion from the Garden. That would be after the creation by about 7000 years!
13,000-7,000 = 6.000 YEARS!!!!
Mormonism is a young religion and is fortunate to claim direct access to a Deity who can correct errors in imperfect texts. I am not so sure that the Tea Party evangelicals are comfortable with that idea. I aslo suspect that this sort of facile statement of belief would upset many Americans, including his fellow Mormons.
If you have not done so, I recommend reading Michael Young’s remarkable speech to his fellow Mormons on the subject of why Mormons, of all Americans, need to show tolerance. Young, the new President of the UW
UPDATE: Chris Christie Endorses Mitt Romney For President Ahead Of 2012 .
He may have a point. Before people grew crops, they didn’t own much of anything, including women.
Leaving aside your assertion that “marriage” began as a form of ownership, your archaelogy is out of wack. Agriculture and “ownership” are both older than 6,000 years. Ur, for example, is estimated to have existed as a city 10,000 years ago.
Perhpas though Romney is really beinga a Mormon? Iwould guess that agriculture in North America, as practiced by the natives who were .. as we know Jews .. began something like 6,000 years ago. This does, however raise other chronological issues. If the Jews came here as the Mormons claim to esacpe the Assyrians, and then invented agriculture (and marriage) … then we should only find evidence of American indigenous cilvilization after about 4500 year ago!
Wew need to ask FRomney toi explain this to us.
No we don’t ! Keep religion out of politics all together . Lets focus on the economy and get something accomplished that matters, instead of wasting our time on such %#@!&*# !
As far as one man one woman arrangement being the best to raise children, a segment of the Mormons still practice multi-wives marriages. So it seems Romney isn’t in agreement with all aspects of his religion. In addition, in early times of society especially Christan (illustrated in the old testament) marriages consisted of mult-wives. So as he seems to infer that the one man one woman marriage started 6,000 years ago is not so.
As societies evolve and knowledge increases it stands to reason that definitions of certain words would change. It seems to me that the “word” marriage indicates certain legal rights, property rights, entering into contracts etc. and to which some attach moral/spiritual rights/privileges. The later is where the trouble comes in. For those that believe “their” spirital beliefs and instincts should be the same for everyone else. Science has brought us beyond that as well as the world is round. Again it seems to me, those with blocks in their brains, the “word” marriage with all it’s implications, by withholding it from legal documents of unions except of one man and one woman is a way of preventing other types of unions. Even though unions with certain/some legal rights as marriage exist, w/o the “word” marriage these other unions are not equal to or recognized as those containing the “word” marriage. It is my opinion why Romney sticks to the “word” for the implications it carries and it’s power to discriminate. Therefore I feel he is about forcing his beliefs on others.
I am just saying…….
As far as one man one woman arrangement being the best to raise children, a segment of the Mormons still practice multi-wives marriages. So it seems Romney isn’t in agreement with all aspects of his religion. In addition, in early times of society especially Christan (illustrated in the old testament) marriages consisted of mult-wives. So as he seems to infer that the one man one woman marriage started 6,000 years ago is not so.
As societies evolve and knowledge increases it stands to reason that definitions of certain words would change. It seems to me that the “word” marriage indicates certain legal rights, property rights, entering into contracts etc. and to which some attach moral/spiritual rights/privileges. The later is where the trouble comes in. For those that believe “their” spirital beliefs and instincts should be the same for everyone else. Science has brought us beyond that as well as the world is round. Again it seems to me, those with blocks in their brains, the “word” marriage with all it’s implications, by withholding it from legal documents of unions except of one man and one woman is a way of preventing other types of unions. Even though unions with certain/some legal rights as marriage exist, w/o the “word” marriage these other unions are not equal to or recognized as those containing the “word” marriage. It is my opinion why Romney sticks to the “word” for the implications it carries and it’s power to discriminate. Therefore I feel he is about forcing his beliefs on others.
I have a different POV.
I see the term “marriage” as an unnecessary source of contention, pushed by a gay community that is simultaneously desirous of being accepted and in your face about gay life styles that go well beyond anyone’s definition of “marriage.” Dan Savage, as one example, has argued that marriage has nothing to do with fidelity. He openly states that he and his partner have an open marriage and see their only joint commitment as being to the privileges .. e.g. parenthood, property, and taxes … accorded by society to a married couple.
It seems to me that a logical solution is a national pairing law that leaves the definition of marriage to the non-government sector. I would call this pairing. If the L street Baptists want to have authority “given by the state” to confer pairship along with a marriage ceremony that is fine by me.
On the other hand, I think is it is asinine to put all paired relationships into one box. Male-female pairing is what has been recognized for a very long time and in most human societies as having a specific quality. Why change that? If I am a Jew and we recognize “marriage” as being between a man and a woman, why is that any one else’s business to redfine the term?
I don’t believe gays want to “in your face” message about “some” of their life styles and gays in unions that parallels traditional hetero’s, while some hetero’s who have taken traditional vows have open marriages and engage in muti- sexual partners experiences. As they have taken traditional marriage are “they” flaunting
their life style in our faces. Who are the “our” anyway. It’s my contention that gays want the seem rights and privileges that currently the “word” marriage gives others.
I have no conflict with your other thoughts.
ps I am a straight, divorced grandmother
I would hate the election to end up being sidetracked by social issues again at the expense of distracting the momentum to fight an economic class war against the Republican pigs. I could care less about whether Romney said 6000 years or what, or what the oldest religion is in the world (which wouldn’t necessarily say anything about its quality), etc, Can we get back to Occupy Seattle and other more important topics?
Another commentor sent me questions by email. Here are the question and my answers:
You ask whether I am a bigot?
I have no idea why you ask that but if you mean do I have biases? The answer is yes. I am biased aginst peoplke whose religons advocate harming others and against politicians whose religous beliefs make them unable to use science as part of their decision making.
You ask how I feel about a Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison.
In re Keith Ellison, as with Mitt Romney or John Kennedy, I would make a distinction between the rulings of someone’s relgion and the individuals willingness to follow those rules. I would not vote for a Catholic who proclaimed obeissance t the pope, or for a Muslim who accepted the literal rules of Sharia, for a Mormon who believed that the Book of Mormon was a basis for scientific decisions.
You question Jewish loyalty to Israel.
In re “loyalty” for Jews, I would vote for anyone who believes we should protect Japan from China, Israel from Iran, Niger from Gaddafi, Tibet from China … etc. Why is Israel any more of an issue than these? Should I have worried about Kennedy’s support for Eire or Norm Rices’s support for the anti-apartheid movement? Is Nader a woirry because he is an Arab?
You ask whether I ever questioned Barack Obama’s affinity for a radical black pastor?
No. Obama has never made an issue of his faith and I am not aware of any issues where African Baptists have beliefs that pose a danger to my own prinicples.
As for Rev. Wright, I have lived in the African American community and may understand his rhetoric better than most. I aslo took the time to listen to some complete sermons and agree with some of his concerns.
BioBuddhist and Rocky.
As for Romney, my only reason for citing this is that I suspect he is a very shallow man with no real convictions other than the odd idea that he would like to manage the US. I really doubt he cares if Moroni left Golden Tablets around any more tha he care about gay marriage.
His kind of person seems to em to be very dnagerous because they do not care what or where the truth is.
As for the economy. it seems to me that the most pressing need is for honesty.
There are real problems that can not be dealt with by magic solutions.
Back at Romney, his chief economic adviser is a supply sider! The challenge for Obama is to explain to the public that in a global economy trickle will go down the drain to China, India, or Brazil … anyplace with a labor surplus and a well enough run economy to be productive.
“Well enough run” is a huge issue and needs to be explained without starting yellow or red hate up again. China is a state capiatlism society, a type of government that was invented in Italy under the name fascism. The Chinese government can decide to invest ins solar energy and, in doing so, undercut efforts to develop such an industry here. Worse, tax cuts to the rich likely will end up invested in the Chinese firms and in Chinese jobs.
The answers to all this are hard, really hard. Did you know that only 30% of China’s GNP is based in trade within China? For the US the number is well over 70%. A huge part of the $ here is amde by selling thinsg to each other, things made in China! If you invest in $$$ in Walmart, you are investing in China!
So yeh, Romney’s lip service to the Bishop of Usher’s 6000 year claculation matter a lot!
Sorry, I still see no reason to redefine marriage. What skin is it off anyone elses’s nose if the Roman Catholics and Orthodox Jews define marriage as they always have?
I also support the rights to polygamy and even to pairings of related couples .. as long as there is no coersion and cousins do not begat kids, why should I care?
I have no reason to call a house full fo nuns “a marriage” even if the nuns share Jesus as their mate. Their church has the right to define marriage.
If you choose to be an Orthodox Jew and eat pork, that does not give me or the government a need to intervene in the definition of “kosher.”
I think many or most gays want acceptance of their relatrionship by the wider community. This goes beyond pairing and includes other forms of relationship that are less committed or comprise groups.
The desire to be accepted and need to fight discrimination is a reaonable wish but itis not a reason for the government to to tell an orthodox Jew to accept gay marriage.
I think your are being unfair to Romney. Like anyone else he gets to define what his religion is and choose the religion he wishes to identify with. These are not always the same things, but in this case the LDS are very clearly and aggressively opposed to polygamy.
As for what Romney wants to impose on others, I sincerely doubt he cares about this issue. He is sucking up to the radical right and that is what scares me about him.
On the other issue of when monogamy developed, you are quite right. It is a Roman idea, not a Jewish idea. Like a lot of other parts of Christianity .. the pontifex maximus. the trinity, anti antisemitism, a lot of the central ideas of modern Christianity are a lot closer to roman state religion than it is to Judaism. Marriage in other societies takes other forms and … if we are a multicultural society we should respect all of those rather than forcing a definition on everyone. The furor over this word is a form of Newspeak … just as thw term “right to life” has come to mean state control over women’s bodies.
I think the more pertinent issue around Romney is that he made his money trading derivatives and other devious but ‘legal’ means that have nothing to do with real work and productivity. He is a sham, I agree, and when he refers to ‘class warfare’ started by the OccupyWallStreet movement, I say ‘yes, and I’m ready to fight the good fight with the likes of you Romney! Put up your Dukes!’ So if Romney becomes the ‘Republicats’ candidate, then he will epitomize the very financiers that the people now in the street are so pissed off about, the fat cats who bilked the system and have not been held accountable as they laughed in their banks (they didn’t even have to laugh all the way to the bank).