Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol Palin blames Obama girls re same-sex marriage


2xx1xy1JD

Recommended Posts

It's all on your head now. ;)

Right, basically, the early church in Europe didn't consider marriage a "sacrament", so you had different forms of marriage. With different forms, I mean the transfer of rights and property, inheritance and so on. Basically, marriage was all civil, and mainly concerned with property. For example, on the continent, you could have a marriage - as a woman - in which you retained your individual rights and property, and were free to make your own testament. Or you were married in a form of marriage, which basically made you a husband's chattel. There's quite a lot of variation from medieval country to medieval country, but blessings from the church were not needed for a marriage. And until the early middle ages, official concubinage was not unheard of. Incidentally, it briefly recurred under Martin Luther in the Palatinate (Germany), with the latter's blessing, but only for the prince, who had two legal wives at the same time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_ ... r_Palatine (the link is not quite correct- it mentions a unilateral divorce, but the original sources, and several books, indicate that this was a case of church-sanctioned polygyny. The only book I have at hand is in French. Let me know if you want the title, and author!)

Only the Catholic Council of Trent in the 1560s (it lasted several years) made marriage a sacrament, and after that a Catholic marriage had to be blessed by a priest to be valid. Protestant countries, like England, continued to recognize civil marriages. Anyone could get married by simply declaring themselves husband and wife, no witnesses needed, but having them could help in the case of dispute. Marriage was a civil affair, and not sacred at all. It was a contract between two private citizens that could, but didn't have to, be blessed in a church. That didn't change till Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753, which set down the proper form for an English marriage ceremony. Of course this had an impact on property rights, and inheritance, since now you had to have the "proper form" of marriage to dispose of your property.

I get a bit sketchy on divorce laws, and how they work with property, but the United Kingdom, and its colonies had quite different divorce laws for every region. In England itself, it was quite difficult to get a divorce, but it was easier in Scotland, and the colonies. At the time. Coincidentally, in Scotland and the colonies women also had more rights to their own property.

Sorry, I'm getting all jumbled, because my inner nerd wants to get out so much, and just realized I forgot the Romans, who also had various forms of marriage, all connected to the rights of the wife, and property . :cry: And marriage of Roman soldiers to non-Roman citizens is really interesting too.

Sorry, I tried, without going overboard. The point is that marriage was mainly concerned with property rights, and inheritance back in the day. The "form" of marriage, or rather the actual wedding, only got interesting in contested cases, where there was a need to establish whether or not an actual contract existed. That never changed! But it was never really all about raising children in a "family unit", until the Victorians came along. Don't get me wrong, there are some touching examples of marital love throughout history, but that wasn't the main idea behind it. In the 17th century, there was a saying: "a wife for heirs, a mistress for love, and friends for company" - I think that says its bit about what a "marriage" meant then. Granted, that saying was for rich men, but without pensions, practical thinking prevailed.

An interesting book on the subject is "The Weaker Vessel" by Antonia Fraser, "The Prospect before her" by Olwen Hufton, and I'll have to get back to you on my sources on earlier history than the 1600s. Sorry, it's a bit late here. Another one, a bit obscure, is "Promises, Promises, Promises" by Leah Leneman, about marriage litigation in Scotland from 1698 onwards. It's great, because it gives you a lot of background information, and Leneman has written a book about unwed mothers in 17th century Scotland as well, which was...enlightening, to say the least.

*seriously slunks back to her library to wish she hadn't drunk some wine in between those two posts, because this is a huge social and women's history issue... repents drinking wine...* :oops:

Oooh you can keep posting that for me! I know some of it, i find it fascinating tbh. I did know some of the differences between holy matrimony (the sacrament) and marriage (the legal bit) - which is handy because so many fundies seem to be unaware that there actually is a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Since you're twisting my arm... :D

Sorry, I need more coffee to arrange my thoughts, so I don't ramble again. I get cross when fundies, and others, bang on about marriage being an age-old institution bound up in tradition, when historical records show conclusively that it has changed so, so much. The only thing that's constant is that it pertains to property, and regulates the rights of women. It wasn't about what we imagine as "family unit" for the longest time, and definitely not about raising children, but they don't get that.

Give me two more cups of coffee, while I sniff my books, and possibly mutter "my precious" at them in a creepy voice. :oops:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit of a (read: obsessive) religious history nerd, so I've come across some of the history of marriage. But I would love to know more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I tried to hold back, I promise! :oops: :oops: :oops: You're mostly right. But the insufferable history nerd in me is whining, that it depends. For example in 17th century London, the baby's unwed mother's word was all that was needed, for the parish to go after the father for child support. Obviously, this practice had fiscal reasons. Otherwise the parish would have had to pay for the illegitimate child's upbringing if the mother couldn't. Still, back then, the unwed mother Bristol had a chance of being dragged to court, getting a public flogging, having to pay an astronomical fine, and getting sentenced for up to one year's hard labour in gaol. Good old days? I don't think so.

*slinks back off to her dusty library to have a stern talk with the inner nerd, about not adding a loooong diatribe about how the "thousands of years old" institution of marriage has changed massively, since Roman times, and only the ceremony started getting codified with the Council of Trent in the 1560s, which initially had no impact on the Protestants in the Western World, and...please excuse me, while I sniff some books to get over Bristol's history fail, and repent for being such a pedantic nerd! :oops: *

You are nerd of awesomeness! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree!

There is something seriously wrong with a woman who thinks a president is making a claim about same-sex marriage is basing it just on his daughters' opinion, rather than, say, hundreds of year of prejudice and wanting to change it. It's clear that Malia and Sasha have tons more sense than she does though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She says that the Obama daughters are misguided because they think gay marriage is ok and this is because their father is not "correcting" their line of thinking? So does this mean Mr. Palin is a screaming case of father-failure given that the Palins are so outspoken about abstinence before marriage? I mean hell, her mother still thinks abstinence only education is they way to go in spite of her daughter's absolute glaring proof that this does not work.

Don't forget her son's glaring proof as well :roll: Granted, Track and his wife were a bit older and more prepared to deal with a child, but they were only married for about 3 months before their daughter was born.

Of course I find what this stupid woman said unpalatable. I'm also bothered by the fact that she is making ANY public statements about Pres. Obama's children. The blog post's title was in itself a dig at the President and his daughters. Didn't her mother lambast the "liberal, gotcha" media for speaking about HER children? Didn't the Palins want families to be off limits when it came to politics? So, just another routine day at hypocrisy central I guess.

Absolutely, she did. Anyone remember the absolute shit-fit she had because Letterman made some stupid insinuation about Willow-who-he-thought-was-Bristol? Not to mention all the times she trotted her DS son out as a prop, while simultanously claiming that everyone was mocking or insulting Trig and other people with disabilities.

Of course, as someone noted upthread, you don't really need to say anything about Bristol running her mouth here...the snark basically writes itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something I seriously don't get. The US, which advocates abstinence-only sex ed, has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in the west. Countries such as the Netherlands, which have comprehensive sex ed from an early age, have the lowest. Why aren't people taking note that that might just work,and obviously does?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are nerd of awesomeness! :o

:oops: Thank you! :)

@ Sola: Yay, history nerds unite! :)

Okay, this is going to get VERY long, and somewhat detailed. The "problem" with discussing marriage before the Council of Trent is that there are so many varied forms in Western Europe alone. Marriage, or rather wedding contracts changed, and depended on the people who made them, and their status. For example, in the middle ages, when serfdom was still around, a marriage between a serf and a free person had implications for the children. If the wife was a serf, so were the children. If the husband was a serf, the children weren't. But that is just one of numerous examples, which were then further regulated by individual contracts. Another example would be "marriage to the left hand", which was bascially the marriage of a highborn man, and a woman of lower status, which explicitly regulated that the wife retained her rank, and the children inherited hers, and her property alone. One very late example for such a marriage would be the assassinated Austrian heir to the throne (his death began WW1), whose wife technically remained a countess, and whose children were not in line for succession.

But until the 1560s, marriages remained a largely civil affair. It was possible to get it blessed in church, but that wasn't a requirement. It was a contract between two people, and their families, with no divine intervention. What changed before the 1560s was that the Reformation swept across Europe. Basically, the Council of Trent made marriage a Catholic (!) sacrament, and hence a requirement for Catholics to have their unions blessed by a priest, according to certain rules of Canon law. For example: reading of banns, marrying within Canon hours, etc.

Looking at the broader history of the time, this had several advantages for the Catholic church in terms of power. They could declare marriages null and void, if they didn't adhere to their rules. Henry VIII was dead by then, but technically they could declare any other ruler's marriage void, which would have made the children illegitimate, and their claims to assorted European thrones equally void. Or a rival heir's divinely legitimate. Protestant Europe wasn't too bothered, but it impacted on the lives of everyday Catholics, who suddenly had to get married in church. At the same time, the new rules allowed them ways "out" of a marriage that would have been previously regulated differently. Not married during Canon hours? You're not married at all.

In some Protestant countries, like Great Britain, and by extension the colonies, things remained the way they had been. Marriage was a civil contract between two parties. By the 17th century, a purely civil marriage had become a bit socially dubious, but for example in the 16th century, one of Elizabeth I maids of honour got married by contract alone still. Marriage in England was complicated. For example, a promise to get married, followed by intercourse was technically a marriage. So was a marriage by declaration - just telling several witnesses that the pair of you consider yourself married. Mostly, the issues with this come out in court-cases dealing with inheritance.

One English way of dissolving a marriage was "selling your wife" at the market. Since marriage was a civil contract, one way of getting out of it, was finding someone else to take your place. Technically, this was illegal, but before and even after Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753, it was practiced in England. "Selling one's wife", I should add, in practice, wasn't quite as horrid as it sounds, although demeaning. History indicates that poor husbands and wives - in most cases, but not in all- agreed upon it, and a new husband was pre-arranged, who paid a nominal fee. On the other hand, there are recorded instances, which aren't so benevolent, for example a 19th century soldier, who recorded in his diary that he just bought a poor farmer's wife in the market, without any pre-arrangements. Another 19th century soldier recorded that he found his wife married to someone else, after several years' absence, and agreed to the payment of a penny from her new husband, since his wife seemed happy, there were several new children, and his own daughter was well-cared for. For a "real" divorce, an Act of Parliament was necessary, which was extremely costly. Legal separation was cheaper, and granted by the Chancery, but remarriage was impossible.

Scotland was a different ball-game. Only in 2000 did "common law marriages" cease to exist. Before that, if you were known to all your neighbours and friends as married, without being technically married, you were. Again, this mostly mattered to settle inheritance, where competing claims existed. Needless to say that Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753 didn't extend to Scotland, which retained its own marriage, and divorce laws. It was easier to get married in Scotland, so after Hardwicke, Gretna Green became a popular spot for elopement for English couples. The rules didn't apply, and "civil marriage" remained valid.

In terms of married women's property, Scotland was also quite different. In England, a married woman lost her property to her husband, and wasn't a legal person anymore. In Scotland, a married woman retained her "carriable" property, i.e. everything but land, and had her own voice. That means, she could enter a legal contract. Depending on the marriage contract however, it was possible for a woman to retain full possession of her landed property.

Especially working class couples often didn't marry legally, but cohabited and had children. There was a social stigma on illegitimate children, and some penalties, but it wasn't comparable to England or mainland Europe. Marriage, it seems, had no direct benefit to these couples, other than preventing them setting up with a new partner, should the relationship fail. However, the bit about "common law marriages" enabled children from such a match to claim an inheritance, should their parents die unwed. The Highlands of Scotland, I should say, were completely different, but I won't go too much into that.

Divorce was comparatively easy (compared to England and Catholic countries, where you had to petition the pope for an anullment). Coinciding with the Council of Trent, the Scottish Parliament decided that Catholic laws were no longer binding in Scotland, and promptly set out to make divorce possible. First only in cases of adultery - which was punishable by death till then, reasoning that in such a case spouses should be legally declared dead to one another. So, actually this was not strictly speaking a divorce, but becoming legally widowed, which allowed remarriage for both parties. Later, spousal abandonment and cruelty were added as reasons for divorce. Unlike in England, you could get divorced in a court, and as the poorer spouse got court-mandated maintenance from the richer spouse until the divorce was granted. A divorce also didn't affect your children's status, and therefore their rights to inherit. Still, divorce was very rare until the 19th century.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the colonies to say much about that, but if I recall correctly, divorce was easier obtainable there as well, while the same laws as in England applied to getting married.

Phew, sorry, this got really long, and is by no means complete. It's just such a huge topic, and has barely even touched upon continental Europe, where things looked different yet again. For example, in France, unlike in England, by law a married woman retained all her property, except for the queen. The thing is that marriage was not about the children, but about heirs. That doesn't mean that people didn't love their families, but whether or not one was married, only actually became important, when it came to property. I think the Scottish example illustrates that best. Marriage wasn't about a deity, or love, or providing a family unit for children, but about regulating access to property.

Only the Victorians moved away from that view, and began the "cult of childhood", and changing the connotations. Again, that is not to say that previously spouses didn't love each other, and their children. An example of an 18th century (literate) artisan, grieving his little daughter comes to mind, or an 18th century farmer's wife, who wrote in a letter that she cannot allow herself to grieve her daughter right now, because it's harvest time, and she can't afford to break down (paraphrased). Equally, there are touching love letters, some of which sound rather modern. A particular one, written in the early 1600s comes to mind, in which a young woman wrote to her soldier sweetheart how much she missed him, and begged him to write to her. And those are only the examples that survive.

But marriage then, didn't have the same implications as now. So, I cringe, every time I hear someone gushing about "traditional" marriage, because...which sort do you mean? And that is without even touching on arranged marriages, class differences, sexuality, and rates of illegitimacy. There is no such thing as "thousands of years" of marriage! :twisted:

*This did get way, way longer than anticipated, and very much geared towards the 17th & 18th century. Sorry, my area of expertise is showing...*

Edited because I didn't realize just how long my rant turned out to be. See, I shouldn't be allowed to leave my library unattended. :oops:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edited because I didn't realize just how long my rant turned out to be. See, I shouldn't be allowed to leave my library unattended. :oops:

Nonsense! I crave your sweet, sweet knowledge!

Er... that came out wrong...

Awesome post! :handgestures-thumbupleft:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After criticizing President Obama over his recent endorsement for gay marriage, Bristol Palin is under attack from an unlikely source -- "Jersey Shore" star, Jenni "JWoww" Farley.

"Bristol should keep her uneducated ignorant mouth shut. If Ur living in the past u wouldn't have a kid w/out marriage #hypocrite. It's 2012!" JWoww tweeted Thursday afternoon.

The secretly savvy guidette's tweet comes in response to Palin's criticism of Obama's explanation for his evolving views on gay marriage. Obama explained that because his daughters have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, he could no longer explain to them that those couples should be treated any differently.

"While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads," Palin wrote in a public Facebook post. "In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home."

But JWoww isn't the only famous face taking to Twitter to show Sarah Palin's daughter the error of her ways.

"We know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home." really bristol palin? how's your kid doing?" openly gay DJ, Samantha Ronson tweeted.

Echoing Ronson's sentiments, former "The Hills" star Lo Bosworth simply tweeted, "Bristol Palin - you so silly, girl."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bristol, go fuck yourself. No, seriously, actually go, close your door, turn off your phone, and fuck yourself. Do it several times a week, and you may find that you've chilled out and lost interest in controlling other people's sex and love lives, and as an added bonus, this sort of activity won't result in another "surprise".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow....the fact that a cast member of Jersey Shore can call her out and make sense speaks volumes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense! I crave your sweet, sweet knowledge!

Er... that came out wrong...

Awesome post! :handgestures-thumbupleft:

LOL Thank you! :oops: Now, would anyone like to know anything about premarital sex in the course of Western history, contraceptives and abortion? :mrgreen: But I can only tell you about it from the 17th century onwards, because the middle ages are a bit sketchy for me. Ahem, right... I really, really shouldn't be allowed out of my library unattended. :naughty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samurai Sarah, thanks for the awesome posts. Also, even in the Bible, marriage is apparently primarily an informal, civil affair. Marriage in the Old Testament happened when a couple publicly left their parents' home, set up home together and had sex. No religious ceremony needed. By the time Paul was writing, I am guessing that Roman law covered what legally constituted marriage (and Christians had to follow it as rendering unto Caesar), though unfortunately I am not enough of a classicist to know what that might be. I would be surprised if there wasn't any kind of allowance for common law marriage, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow....the fact that a cast member of Jersey Shore can call her out and make sense speaks volumes!

Is it bad that I, an anti-Jersey Shorer (the TV show) wants to up JWOW's respectability cup by +2 points? * isn't sure if she should be ashamed of herself, because she goes to the NJ Shore for a week way before the cast has on public TV :oops: *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it bad that I, an anti-Jersey Shorer (the TV show) wants to up JWOW's respectability cup by +2 points? * isn't sure if she should be ashamed of herself, because she goes to the NJ Shore for a week way before the cast has on public TV :oops: *

It isn't bad. My respect for JWow also went up a bit. I think the Jersey Shore cast would be a tad more pleasant to be around than the Palins. The Palins come off as sanctimonious assholes. JWow at least has a college education and she probably will be to support herself after her reality shows days end. Bristol will eventually to face reality when her fan base stops caring about her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samurai Sarah, thanks for the awesome posts. Also, even in the Bible, marriage is apparently primarily an informal, civil affair. Marriage in the Old Testament happened when a couple publicly left their parents' home, set up home together and had sex. No religious ceremony needed. By the time Paul was writing, I am guessing that Roman law covered what legally constituted marriage (and Christians had to follow it as rendering unto Caesar), though unfortunately I am not enough of a classicist to know what that might be. I would be surprised if there wasn't any kind of allowance for common law marriage, though.

Thanks. :) I'm a bit sketchy on actual biblical marriage in the OT, but you're right that Roman law was quite particular about marriage. There were different forms of marriage, all of which mostly regulated access to rights, and property. I forget the precise names (not a classicist either), but some forms of marriage were a transfer of total authority from the father to the husband (including the right to kill, because a Roman father could kill his progeny). Others were more or less equal in terms of rights, and property. Like you, I find it telling that, while Paul was going on, and on about marriage, he seems to have accepted the different forms of marriage. Off the top of my head, I can't think of an example of Roman common law marriage though. I suspect that a father's legal acknowlegdement of children might have played a role though. Hmm...

*slinks back to the library to consult references, and yay, a riddle for the weekend! :D *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bristol is a fucking moron. My favorite description of her online is "America's Most Unsuccessful Teen Abstinence Advocate" and it's true. She preaches abstinence, when she obviously didn't do it. And now she's saying how important it is for children to grow up with a mom and dad - and she's a single mom. I'm not bashing single moms here at all - I'm calling her a great big hypocrite. Isn't her family trying to keep Tripp's douchebag father away from him?

Levi wasn't "bad" at first. He hung on and tried to be there for his son.

He did stupid things as a teen, like fishing for salmon in a creek closed for fishing. Ooooooh, what a bad guy. He and Bristol chose to sleep with each other, but it's been phrased as he got his jollied and she got knocked up. He did it to her. She had no part in it because she's the pregnant one, it's all his fault even though it was a mutual decision, and the law gave her the right to abort. She chose to have unprotected sex just as much as he did, and she alone had the choice to keep or abort. So he's the bad guy because of a mutual decision, and then for her decision to keep.

He hung on, trying to be there. Bristol jerked him around. Bristol would want to get married, then dump him, and he'd put up with it. Then she moved to New Mexico, Colorado, wherever the hell it was, and got a massive child support order he couldn't pay, and that started the downward spiral.

I still don't see Levi as a douchebag. His son's mom is a bitch who jerked him around and make sure he couldn't be in his son's life. Being in Playgirl (money that likely went to pay the child support he couldn't afford otherwise) and being with someone else doesn't make him a bad guy. And I've said far worse about Bristol AND Sarah than I've ever heard him say, and what they've said about him, how he victimized Bristol because she got pregnant from her own decision and became a mom because of her choice, among other things, really makes his words mild. Bristol's the one insulting Levi, and since our society basically says moms can do no wrong and it's always the dads' fault, he's the one who's suffered.

If Bristol believed kids need both parents, she would be glad to give Levi time with his own son instead of moving out of state to make it tougher. She doesn't believe a damned thing she says about abstinence or two parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have more respect for Jamie Lyn Spears than Bristol Palin. At least Jamie Lyn had enough sense to go home, raise her child, keep her mouth shut and just let her idiot family be the stars of the show.

Oh yes, I agree so much. She's not out there trying to jet-set to keep her child's dad away while bad-mouthing what "he did to me" as if it wasn't a joint decision to have sex. She got pregnant, but is putting her child first. I respect how she's basically stayed out of the limelight and isn't actively seeking tv shows and glory while her young child needs mommy home. (I just have to say, I love the hell out of Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck for how they're raising their kids as normal little kids, including playmates at the park and trips to the library and not covering them in high-end name-brand stuff like Suri Cruise, who is going to be a major brat when she's older.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't see Levi as a douchebag. His son's mom is a bitch who jerked him around and make sure he couldn't be in his son's life. Being in Playgirl (money that likely went to pay the child support he couldn't afford otherwise) and being with someone else doesn't make him a bad guy. And I've said far worse about Bristol AND Sarah than I've ever heard him say, and what they've said about him, how he victimized Bristol because she got pregnant from her own decision and became a mom because of her choice, among other things, really makes his words mild. Bristol's the one insulting Levi, and since our society basically says moms can do no wrong and it's always the dads' fault, he's the one who's suffered.

I know absolutely nothing about Bristol and Levi's Jerry Springer-ish relationship. However, unless Bristol jumped on the guy's dick when he wasn't looking, he's just as responsible for her getting pregnant as she is. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to have sex without using any protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know absolutely nothing about Bristol and Levi's Jerry Springer-ish relationship. However, unless Bristol jumped on the guy's dick when he wasn't looking, he's just as responsible for her getting pregnant as she is. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to have sex without using any protection.

Bristol has claimed that he got her drunk and had sex with her when she wanted to wait. She's not calling it out rape, but basically he took advantage of her that's what she claims. Hence the reminder to bristol that she had sex, and maybe it was an unfortunate decision informed by alcohol, unless she's filing for rape or outright says it was a rape, she had sex voluntarily.

Yes he's responsible too, not only responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bristol has claimed that he got her drunk and had sex with her when she wanted to wait. She's not calling it out rape, but basically he took advantage of her that's what she claims. Hence the reminder to bristol that she had sex, and maybe it was an unfortunate decision informed by alcohol, unless she's filing for rape or outright says it was a rape, she had sex voluntarily.

Yes he's responsible too, not only responsible.

I heard they went camping and one-thing-led-to-another. Never heard of any alcohol involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard they went camping and one-thing-led-to-another. Never heard of any alcohol involved.

wasn't it in her autobiography? i think it was wine coolers. I didn't read the book so I am probably wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.