As part of an effort to provide new and exciting wingnuts for your reading pleasure, allow me to present Paula Devlin (who lives where “the men still put their pants on one leg at a time” and who writes for many of the low-rent wingnut sites), with an essay on Holy Matrimony: Church v. State

The allowing of marriage outside the churches, under the control of the civil authorities, has ruined it and the family along with it.

With an opening sentence like that, you know this is going to be good.

The concept of civil marriage originated with Luther (no doubt because of his personal situation) and became public policy after the French Revolution.

For thousands of years and in every culture, matrimony has had religious connotations: a ceremony with offering sacrifices or prayers (only the married realize how much they are needed) are common everywhere.

And marriage, of course, has never been primarily a religious institution (the transmission of property was a very important aspect of it, I believe), but let’s move on.

Civil marriage is fatally flawed as detrimental to public morality. No-fault divorce, available since the early 1970?s, has made a mess of so many lives that it should be banned immediately. Women and children are the losers in most divorces, especially in the lower classes: so many end up in poverty and even worse situations.

We were warned of the dangers of civil marriage over 100 years ago, when it was noted that it would open the floodgate of unbridled license.

But if civil marriage started with Martin Luther in the 1400’s, why didn’t anybody warn us about it and its license until the Victorian age?

Even then, Socialists were responsible for the advocacy of free love. Their view of the world as completely materialistic is wrong. They do not believe there is a final accounting for one?s actions. Regardless, it prevails, to the detriment of all.

But “free love” holds that if a couple are “soul mates,” then nature has joined them together and they don’t need the blessings of the church or the state. And besides, there are very few socialists in America these days. So, what does “free love” have to do with divorce, civil marriage, or anything else we’ve been talking about so far?

Holy matrimony has been the basis for a stable, productive society. There are those who saw that to destroy the family would provide a chink in a nation?s armor which would help bring it down. Families with multiple sets of parents, siblings and sleeping arrangements cannot be the best character-nurturing environment for children. Add to this instability the cultural influences from government schools, music and television.

So, is Paula claiming that “those” (maybe the Socialists, or possibly the Stalinists) are causing American families to have step-siblings and multiple sleeping arrangements, as part of an effort to bring down America? If so, you have to admire their power over us.

The family as the building block of society has been destroyed and replaced with impersonal institutional propagandizing. Children are ultimately under the control of the state, which is the moral equivalent of being under the control of the devil.

America, the nation, is good and pure, but America, the state, is the devil? I’m really getting confused here.

Giving civil authorities ultimate power over matrimony marked a subtle transition in the philosophy of government. It made matrimony a political issue, subject to mob rule. We can blame the greedy American Bar Association for no-fault divorce. We can blame ourselves for not passing legislation banning this over-funded retirement plan for lawyers.

Oh, if only we had stopped that damned Martin Luther when we had the chance! And now the civil benefits that come from matrimony are in the hands of the state, and the churches are not allowed to give out tax breaks or survivor benefits, which is certainly not the way it was in the good, old days.

And it’s the greedy ABA which reaps the benefits of sin, in the form of Cadillacs and swimming pools, all because we let them talk us into no-fault divorce.

And now we get to the topic you knew this was leading to the whole time — gay marriage.

As for the union of people of the same sex, I am sorry but my mind cannot get around the concept. At best, it is an oxymoron that defies logic. Plumbers know how pipes fit together. I?m not a plumber, but those pipes don?t fit. It is against the natural law.

And as famous greedy lawyer Johnny Cochrane said, “If the pipes don’t fit, you can’t commit.”

Yes, yes, yes, there have always been folks of that inclination, but there have also always been alcoholics, schizophrenics, pedophiles, sadists, politicians, hookers, etc. Evil has always been part of the human condition. But the object of the game has been to overcome it, not jump in with both feet and enjoy it. That?s a Christian concept. And now, in our brave new world order, Christianity is not politically correct, so you can forget about positive things such as charity, fraternal correction, forbearance and run for your lives.

I think what Paula is saying here is that homosexuals, alcoholics, and schizophrenics are evil, and they and others of their ilk (like pedophiles, hookers and politicians), shouldn’t be allowed to marry. You know, because because charitable, forbearing people like Paula don’t like their inclinations.

If ?The Passion? is being attacked as Hate Speech, then these screaming ninnies will attack anything that smacks of conscience as hate speech, including this.

Paula, like Johnny also said, “If the shoe does fit, you must wear it.”

That kind of behavior supports the diagnosis of poor home training. This circle of evil is complete.

I have no idea what that even means, but I’m sure Paula meant it in a charitable way.

But join us next time, when Paula talks about Bolsheviks and Serfdom, American Style and advises:

It wasn?t so long ago property owners could shoot trespassers. Now the trespassers have all the rights, especially illegal immigrants. They should not even have legal standing. Property owners who have illegals on their property should shoot them on sight and ask questions later.

Hey, I told you she was charitable.