Gustavo Arellano: Gay Marriage, Rick Warren, and Chinigchinich

Gay Marriage, Rick Warren, and Chinigchinich
Posted by Gustavo Arellano in Gay Marriage, Gimme That OC Religion, Gunkist Memories
October 31, 2008
The OC Weekly

The Orange County Register printed a letter today (not yet online) by one A. Trujillo Escareño of Tustin arguing marriage has historically been between a man and a woman "even amongst aboriginal people." This is a talking point the Yes on Prop. 8 sexual Know Nothings have repeated again and again, a mantra repeated by no less a figure than Saddleback Church head Rick Warren. "For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion - not just Christianity - has defined marriage as a contract between men and women,” Warren emailed his followers. Silly boy! Don’t you know how to craft a logical argument? By using "every," you set up your argument for easy debunking. To make your statement false, all opponents have to do is find just one counter-example—even if homo-haters toss it aside as an anomaly, it still dismantles the narrow, moronic argument.

To say that all cultures have forever defined marriage as between a man and a woman is provably false, and I don’t even have to whip out a National Geographic special on Papua New Guinea or ancient Central Asian buggers. Nope, all one has to do is find a copy of one of Orange County’s greatest publications: the 1933 edition of Chinigchinich. The book remains the only full ethnographic treatment of the Juaneños at the time of the Mission system and was written by Father Gerónimo Boscana in the early 1800s but not published until 1846 as an addendum to Alfred Robinson’s Life in California. I reviewed an affordable reissue of the book earlier this year, a story that garnered a surprising amount of mail. One loyal reader told me than an even better reissue existed—the Malki Museum at the Morongo Indian Reservation in Banning sold a reprint of the 1933 edition.

(snip)

I had a book signing yesterday in Palm Springs, and decided to stop by the Malki Museum to buy a copy of this better Chinigchinich. Not only did the antiquarian in me demand the print issue, but I needed Harrington’s version to rectify a problem. In a chapter about the Juaneño’s marital customs, Boscana noted that men did in fact marry each other. Here’s the excerpt in its entirety:

One of the many singularities that prevailed among these Indians was that of marrying males with males, which has been spoken of by Father Torquemada. It was publicly done, but without the forms, and ceremonies already described in their marriage contracts with the females. Whilst yet in infancy they were selected, and instructed as they increased in years, in all the duties of the women--in their mode of dress--of walking, and dancing; so that in almost every particular, they resembled females. Being more robust than the women, they were better able to perform the arduous duties required of the wife, and for this reason, they were often selected by the chiefs and others, and on the day of the wedding a grand feast was given.

(snip)


There are many other examples of men marrying men through human history, but I won’t concern myself with those. And I won’t even bother arguing with the Yes on Prop. 8 side about the proposition. Instead, I urge this: please stop using your exclusivity argument regarding marriage and heterosexuality—it just doesn’t fly. And Warren—heavy lies the crown, is all.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/gay-marriage/gay-marriage-rick-warren-and-c/

My personal peeve has been with morons who don't know how to use a dictionary, but insist they know what's in it (the "redefining" BS).

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Amarriage