Dry Slot

Last Updated: 10:21 PM GMT on May 11, 2013 — Last Comment: 1:44 PM GMT on May 20, 2013

	This, Too, Shall Pass

Posted by: Bogon, 7:43 PM GMT on May 09, 2012

Yesterday there was a primary election in North Carolina, the state where I reside, the state of my birth. There was a lot on the ballot. There was so much, in fact, that I did not vote. Wife phoned to remind me, so it's not because I forgot. Mainly it's because I'm lazy and apolitical. I'm not plugged into the political process. I don't know any of the people who were running for office. Not only do I not know them personally, I don't know anything about them. I don't follow political news closely enough to form an opinion. (It bores the heck out of me.) The day of the election is much too late to start that homework assignment. I did not want to go to the polls only to pick winners by flipping a coin. That sort of uninformed voting is liable to do more harm than good.

Then there's the fact that I have some background in mathematics. I understand the odds. I also have a grasp of local demographics. This is the Bible belt, Ku Klux Klan territory etc. There's more of them than there is of me. I might break a tie between two candidates, but in any election that pits me versus a sea of Bible thumpers, my lone vote doesn't count for much. I'm okay with that, actually. I'm used to it. That's democracy. I may lament the outcome, but I know that the majority of people will get the quality of government they deserve. After all, they asked for it.

The reason I'm pounding the keyboard today is, that there was precisely one item on yesterday's ballot about which I had formed a clear opinion. If I had gone to the polling place, it would have been in order to express that single opinion. Election returns indicate that it may have been a touchy issue for a lot of people, because there was a big turnout for this primary. The big draw was a constitutional amendment restricting the institution of marriage to intersex monogamy. The amendment passed.

Since I didn't bother to express my opinion at the polls, I'll beg your indulgence to express it now. If you don't care about what I have to say, then move along, folks. There's nothing for you to see here.

Here's the text of the amendment:

"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

What does this amendment change? Most marriages with which I am familiar, including my own, follow the standard one male per one female pattern. Most are conducted in a church or, at least, by a minister, which satisfies a religious imperative. You get a marriage license, which implies a legal angle. You file your taxes jointly, which adds an economic consideration. You get to shack up, which multiplies the economic effects and satisfies a biological imperative. In many cases children will follow, and there is a social imperative that the parents should provide a healthy and stable child-rearing environment. Society regards marriage as a kind of kinship. The amendment affirms all that.

There is already (since 1996) a law on the books which bans gay marriage in North Carolina. I assume there are laws restricting other patterns, such as group marriage, as well. The amendment confirms and reinforces all such restrictions and denials.

The effects of the amendment are therefore minimal. Voters get to vent. The affirmations and restrictions are now etched somewhat more deeply in figurative stone. Surely there are other more pressing and important issues that might be addressed by amending the state constitution.

So why the rigamarole? What is it about the institution of marriage that needs regulating so stringently? Let's look over some of the attributes of marriage that I listed earlier: kinship; child rearing; sex; economics; legal, social and religious sanctions — and love. I didn't actually list that last one before, but here in the Occident love is very much part of an ideal marriage. There may be more stuff that I didn't think of. If I left out something that is important to you, sound off. That's what the comments are for.

Kinship defines families. Whom do we call for help? Who will inherit our stuff when we die? Where do we draw the line between incest and fair game? For most people who get married, these considerations are secondary. One doesn't usually date one's future in-laws. One doesn't amend the constitution over such questions, either.

Child rearing is how we perpetuate our civilization. That's sort of a biggie. That would certainly be worth an amendment or two, but the text of the amendment doesn't address this point. Is monogamy the best way to accomplish the goal? Traditionally children were raised within an extended family. Grandparents, aunts and uncles provided care and acted as role models. These days kids are lucky to be born into a stable nuclear family. Separation and divorce are increasingly common. People are mobile. They leave their families to go where the jobs are or wherever their wanderlust takes them. In a sputtering economy it's more common for both parents to hold jobs. Kids are raised in daycare centers or by television. It might be better for our civilization to consider group marriage as an option. I'm thinking that more (than two) people in a marriage would yield more income, stability and caregivers at home. Those are all good things.

Sex... is private. There is an exhibitionist/voyeuristic side to sex, but in general I don't want to know. I don't really care who does what to whom. Bible thumpers rant about what the Bible says, and I don't care about that, either. The United States Constitution, which explicitly supersedes the state constitution, guarantees freedom of — and by implication, from — religion. I don't need some self-righteous ass telling me what I can do in my own bedroom. Butt out, Jack; it's none of your business. We're all consenting adults here. You're free to do it your way in your bedroom. Grant me the same privacy. That goes for all you paparazzi, too. Butt out. If it were up to me, you guys would be required to paint a target on your t-shirt.

Marriage conduces to economies of scale. By pooling incomes and sharing food and lodging, people are better able to care for each other. No problem there.

Legal marriage affects official identity, since most married couples style themselves as Mr. and Mrs. It helps the state keep track of kinship, inheritance and taxes. Lastly it separates condoned sex from adultery. Adultery is a concept that bleeds over from the social and religious side of things. In that sense it's sort of artificial and doesn't necessarily belong here in the legal domain. Among some primates promiscuity is more the rule than the exception, so I'm inclined to doubt that this kind of jealousy is inherent in human nature. I think it probably goes back to the old patriarchal religions, of which we seem to have a more than generous affliction.

The social and religious aspects of marriage are where the norms and mores originate that define our ideals and expectations with respect to the institution. This is where it gets touchy. This is where the animus behind the amendment comes from. In particular, I think it is the religious folks who feel threatened by any proposal for innovation or diversification in our definitions of marriage. Why they should feel threatened, I can't understand. They remain free to do it their way. Insofar as they seek to prescribe for others, who may not believe as they do, they have no moral or legal standing. In my opinion the new state amendment could be ruled in violation of First Amendment rights, no matter how many people voted for it. Marriage as defined here is essentially "an establishment of religion". It abridges certain forms of free speech. It infringes the rights of people to peaceably assemble.

Peaceable assemblage is what marriage is all about. That's where love enters the picture. Two people like each other so much that they are prepared to make a lifelong comittment to stay together. Most newlyweds have little idea what that commitment will entail. They rely on their love to make their dreams unfold in the face of adversity. Love can hold the marriage together despite the often unforeseen exigencies of aging. It is love, more than anything, that good parents wish to pass on to their children.

So here is where I have the greatest problem with this marriage restriction thing. I don't want my government to tell me what I can't do. Don't repress people. Don't tell me I have to be like everybody else. Don't create problems where none exists. This democracy of ours is not supposed to be exclusive.

I want a government that helps me out. Keep me safe and healthy. Create a fair system within which I can seek my own happiness. Encourage diversity. Spread the love. Love is inclusive. If I'm happy, it increases the chances that you can be happy. Life is not a zero sum game. We can bootstrap this sucker. We can build heaven right here. It will take a lot of love and commitment.

Let's get married.

Permalink | A A A

: Top of Page :

	Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

51. Bogon 3:01 AM GMT on June 02, 2012
Weather update - The front has passed, and we seem to be no worse for wear. The last report from the airport says 64°. Sweet. A squall line rained on us around four o'clock. Another shower, which I took to be a sign of the surface front, passed as darkness settled. There was some wind. Earlier today I found a potted plant blown over, assorted oak leaves and a dislodged bird nest on the ground. I'll have to wait for daylight tomorrow to make a final survey. Member Since: June 26, 2008 Posts: 72 Comments: 2762

52. Bogon 4:17 PM GMT on June 02, 2012
Thinkin' 'bout m-my g-g-generation... You know, my parents' generation has been called the greatest. Does that make mine the sorriest? How will history treat the Baby Boomers? A lot of stuff has floated under the bridge during the last sixty years. It does add up after a while. Wait, I took a picture... I'm thinking I might try to do a blog entry about those three score years. It's kind of a big subject, probably too big for a blog header. I would have to decide whether to do a personal retrospective or go for some kind of objective overview. Given all those obstacles, the project may be doomed from the outset. Shucks, I never let that stop me before. :o) Member Since: June 26, 2008 Posts: 72 Comments: 2762

53. sp34n119w 10:06 PM GMT on June 03, 2012
Just today I came across an article giving the details of the not-pi legislation. There is a lot of incorrect information about it on the 'net so this was good to see. Assuming he's got it right, anyway. I found that via a thread about the NC sea rise legislation. If it passes it will definitely help developers and insurance companies to squeeze more bucks out of the shoreline, and that's what matters, I guess. When I look at what State politicians are doing in the midst of an on-going recession, look at what they evidently think their jobs are, I am amazed that voters are willing to pay them so very well for that "work". But, clearly, that's what the voters want them to do, so, so it goes. Your generation is often the topic of conversation among those of us right on your heels. You can find lots of essays and discussion threads on the 'net from us, too. Our impressions wouldn't interest you, though, as we won't be writing that history. Hope the yard survey turned up no more up-turned pots! Member Since: January 27, 2007 Posts: 77 Comments: 4049

54. Bogon 1:11 PM GMT on June 04, 2012
sp, I read that same page in the course of my researches. Apparently there were several possible values of pi on offer, none of them integer, all of them rational. The bill makes no sense at all. Why should government involve itself in squaring the circle? That's a job for mathematicians. Sadly, getting elected to a legislature doesn't guarantee that the candidate will have a clue about what constitutes good governance. I suppose that's a perennial problem with democracy. Is it the proper business of government to facilitate the search by hucksters for suckers? I don't think so, but maybe that's just me. I would prefer my government to facilitate the search for truth. Obviously that's a hangup from which a lot of my fellow citizens don't suffer. Member Since: June 26, 2008 Posts: 72 Comments: 2762

55. BriarCraft 9:50 PM GMT on June 04, 2012
It's been longer than I thought since I came by to visit. Anyway... Quoting you, Bogon: I don't believe that it is a proper function of government to specify how people should get together to create a family and raise children. People are going to hook up however they please. The government can either get out of the way, or it can try to buck the flow. Governments that routinely adopt the latter course of action are unlikely to succeed in the long run. They are too eminently replaceable. Does anyone find it strange that the Republicans have picked now to spend so much effort in legislating morality? Not just in North Carolina, either, but in lots of states. Or it is just me? Surely, they know such efforts won't fly in the long run, so what is it, really, that they're trying to accomplish? Please the evangelicals, so they'll vote in more Republicans, so that some other agenda can be accomplished? Just call me a conspiracy theorist and nutcase, I guess. I really got a kick out of that Scientific American article, in particular, "Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow's weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don't use radar and barometers; use the Farmer's Almanac and what grandpa remembers." I mean it is funny, until you stop to realize that some politicians actually seem to be taking this seriously. Well, who knows? Maybe they'll succeed. As soon as they figure out a way to fine and/or arrest Mother Nature when she breaks the law. As I'm sure she will, as soon as she hears that some puny mortal men are trying to tell her what she can and cannot do. Wonder who will win that contest??? Oh, and I look forward to seeing what you condense down out of three score years' worth of history to fit into a blog header. The recollections and history will be fun, but more interesting from my view will be which things make it through the editorial process into the typed word in a Bogon-blog. Have a good time with it! Okay, enough blog-hogging, but I had to make up for not coming around for awhile, didn't I??? Member Since: June 21, 2004 Posts: 49 Comments: 2412

56. LowerCal 11:10 PM GMT on June 04, 2012
For those who haven't lived through all of it and aren't history buffs Wikipedia has a great article on the song "We Didn't Start the Fire". Member Since: July 26, 2006 Posts: 58 Comments: 8972

57. Bogon 2:04 AM GMT on June 05, 2012
Cal - I didn't read the wiki yet, but I did live through the history. Many of the images flashing in the background, including the one displayed in the flash player before the song starts, look disturbingly familiar. The names Billy Joel recites ring bells and trigger dormant emotional responses. I guess some things are hard to forget. And that only brings us up to 1989. BriarCraft - The old blog floats along for days at a time with little or no action, then out of the blue somebody comes along with cogent commentary supported by visual aids. :o) We like to brag in this country on how long-lived our government is. The wise men who instituted it tried to build in enough flexibility, checks and balances to make it endure despite the sins and shortcomings of those who would endeavor to operate it. There have been occasions when it was sucessfully rebooted without recourse to violent revolution. I continue to hope that the next such occasion may be drawing near. It is, in my opinion, overdue. With regard to global warming, we're not really talking about Mother Nature, because it's not natural. It's artificial. We humans are doing it. You're right about one thing, though. When the bill comes due, the collection agency will wield all of nature's power. Then we'll see which side of the argument is better for business. I haven't written the first word of the hypothetical Baby Boom blog. Since you're already standing in line for the next edition, I reckon I better get on the stick. Member Since: June 26, 2008 Posts: 72 Comments: 2762

58. BriarCraft 4:45 PM GMT on June 05, 2012
Technically, you're right that climate change is caused by global warming which, in turn, is caused by mankind's excesses, but those very same excesses have PO'd Mother Nature. And since those commercials in the 70s, everyone knows it's not nice to fool Mother Nature (or mess with her, either). Member Since: June 21, 2004 Posts: 49 Comments: 2412

59. Bogon 6:05 PM GMT on June 05, 2012
That's it! It's not weather, it's Chiffon. Member Since: June 26, 2008 Posts: 72 Comments: 2762

Viewing: 51 - 59

Page: 1 | 2 — Blog Index

: Top of Page :

	New Comment

Post Your Comments

Create a username. (Required) Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.