Archive | personal philosophy RSS for this section
May 9, 2012 

Let’s Talk About . . . Gay Marriage

Dun dun dun. Just to begin, I expect there will be a handful of my acquaintances and friends from through the years who will read this, become disgusted or aggravated, and proceed to continue not speaking to me, but that’s okay. I invite you to leave your dogma at the door, as I’ve just mopped and no pets allowed, and really, it’s unhelpful to just say the same things over and over again.

Here’s the deal: marriage is a word with two meanings. On the one hand, it is a legally binding contract between you, a partner, and the State. On the other, it is a holy covenant between you, a partner, and God. But see, here’s the thing: your minister understands that there’s a difference between the two. In fact, he proclaims the difference every time he presides over a wedding. “By the power vested in me by God and <insert state here>. . .” That said, I do not intend to comment on the second, religious meaning of the word. To say they are inseparable is to admit that your government has control over your beliefs, and I think that’s a pretty contradictory statement from you conservatives out there.

In any event. Gay marriage. this handy chart outlining how each state defines marriage, which ones abide it, which ones ban it, and which ones have no legal stance on the matter. For those who don’t want to click and read, it breaks down this way:

37 states have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. 32 of them have passed statutes to that effect, 5 have made “Defense of Marriage” amendments to their constitutions. **Note: their numbers say 33 and 4, but they haven’t updated with the new North Carolina amendment.**

So, you might say, 37 states have said “No Way!” That’s clearly more than the majority of states, and while that seems like pretty strong evidence that maybe they’re on to something, let’s not get caught up in the argumentum ad populum (shout out to Annie Olson. Fallacies, what what!) red herring. In fact, Jim Crow laws, which are (now) almost universally agreed upon as unethical and supremely misguided were enacted in a whopping 35 states.

These laws were enacted shortly after that little war we had in this country in the mid 1800s in response to the new-found freedoms of the African American population. Such laws prevented rights and privileges based on race and/or social class, requiring land, money, education, etc in order to vote, hold office, etc. They were enacted to prohibit African-Americans from becoming effective citizens, with full rights and privileges. But of course, even then they bothered to hawk them as “separate but equal.”

I don’t know anyone who really thinks the Jim Crow laws were a good idea. I mean, I do live in Texas, and I have no doubts that there are a good many people who /DO/ wish they’d come back, but they’re the same ones who would likely not pass muster on the literacy portions anyhow, so we’ll just assume they don’t count. But, fortunately, as part of the resolutions from the war, the Amendment XIV was passed, allowing (among other things) equal protection under the law, stating:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But here we are, in 2012, passing laws that are directly counter to this statement. But wait, you say! Marriage isn’t a right! It isn’t a law! Well, the “right to get married” doesn’t exist, BUT there are certain legal amenities it provides. While these are many and widely varied, I’m going to focus on one that I haven’t seen discussed before, but should anyone know where it has, I’d love to know.

The Federal Rules of Evidence provide, as a matter of course, privilege between spouses to not have “adverse testimony” against each other. This allows a spouse to refuse to be called as a witness by the state against an accused spouse in order to preserve “marital harmony.” This is considered a “privilege,” and protected under FRE Rule 501 (See Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Report No. 93–1277). In fact, Texas offers the privilege as well.

It’s important to note the term privilege used in both of these documents. Amendment XIV expressly forbids making a law which “shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” (emphasis mine). So, I’m going to go ahead and assume that no one assumes that homosexuals born here or naturalized are NOT citizens of this country, so I fail to see how any statute or amendment is lawful with regard to the United States Constitution, which cannot be contradicted by any law of the many states.

But wait, you may say again: the spousal privilege is only for spouses! If they can’t be married, it doesn’t ever apply! Well, you’re correct there. And here’s the problem with that. The privilege does NOT extend to boyfriends/girlfriends, engaged couples, long-time friends, etc. So by default, a homosexual couple is precluded from this privilege. But there’s a fundamental, and important difference between those allowed the privilege and those who aren’t, even among the heterosexual population: the choice to become married.

Boyfriends/girlfriends, long-time friends (of any permutation of sex), etc have all CHOSEN NOT TO BE MARRIED. Should they wish to be married, they’re allowed, but only so long as they happen to be sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex. And really, that last part seems entirely irrelevant. If a homosexual couple chooses to be married, then why can they not receive the privileges and benefits (and pitfalls!) commensurate with the legal bond of marriage? In this case, the homosexual couple wishes to abide by the laws and regulations of the State and form a contract with all its rights and privileges, but are denied on arbitrary grounds. If a homosexual couple doesn’t wish to get married? Sure, fine, deny them spousal privilege, just like you do heterosexual couples who choose not to get married. But to deny a privilege allowed by our state legislation and our federal judiciary system based solely on whether or not the two people have the same set of genitals? That just seems kind of absurd, doesn’t it?

What legal bearing does a set of genitals give? Certainly none in differentiating between the two since other legislation was passed barring the discrimination based on such genital difference. So why then, do genitals suddenly matter when it comes to a legal contract between two consenting adults? There isn’t an answer beyond a great many people presuming that unlikeness equates to moral turpitude.

But therein lies the problem. It seems a great many of the American people have conflated the legal and religious meanings of marriage, and assume they should be the same thing. If you’re going to do that, why not ban any marriages performed by a mullah or imam? By a satanist? By a Catholic or a Baptist or a guru? Their set of marital standards may be considerably different, but all that seems to matter are the ones you can see: whether it’s two people of the same sex or not.

Any way you slice it, the rule is exceedingly arbitrary. I don’t grudge anyone who, because of his or her religious beliefs, will not marry someone of his or her same sex. If that’s what your belief system says is the moral thing, great. But how can you have the audacity to say that your religious beliefs trump a legal contract between some other people and the State? Baptists don’t think drinking is moral, but there aren’t nation-wide campaigns saying we should bring prohibition back because beer is violating the sanctity of our grocery stores. It may not be moral to be gluttonous, but all-you-can-eat buffets still exist without provocation.

Let’s get it together, and use our brains a little bit, and realize that at the end of the day, that gay couple next door who can’t bind themselves together legally are still going to have sex tonight. They’re still going to make their mortgage payment, and they’re not going to eat your children, burn your bibles, or shoot your dog. Step back and ask yourself: In the real grand scheme of things, what difference does this make? And you can even extend that as far as you want. Does a gay married couple affect your relationship with God, your view of heaven? Hell? Life? Love? If it does, you are weak-willed and unsure of either yourself or that in which you believe. If it doesn’t, then why not just love and let love?

April 8, 2012 

Let’s Talk About . . . Cowardice and Motorcycles

I am a worrier, a pessimist, and a worst-case scenario kind of person. As a result, I live in a nearly constant state of fear about what might happen, and I make discussions accordingly. Anxiety and self-doubt keep me from doing a number of things I’d really like to do, but I’m worried about what might happen. I’m worried about failure. About what other people think.

It’s that last one that really bugs me. I like to think that I’m strongly independent. That I can survive solely on my quick wit and boyish good looks, but really, I’m constantly thinking about what someone else thinks or perceives about me, and that’s where a good deal of the fear comes from. Not that I think I can’t do it, but it’s almost like there’s some invisible expert on <insert topic here> standing over my shoulder, measuring me up. It’s ridiculously paralyzing.

Well, I’ve decided to take a stand against my own cowardice, and while that does not mean I’m going to throw caution to the wind, I am going to make a more concerted effort to do things that scare me. I started this journey yesterday.

I bought that, a Piaggio MP3 500. It’s a scooter, not a motorcycle exactly, but close enough, and they’re tons of fun to ride. I’ve been wanting one for years, but I’ve always been too scared to actually do it. What if I crash? What if people make fun of me? What if . . . For years I’ve been playing that game, but it’s over now.

So, I’ll be getting my motorcycle license soon, and then it’ll just be me and the road. Me and the road and a million people driving multi-ton death machines trying to run me over. I mean. Me and the road. Definitely just me and the road. I’m a responsible individual, and I know I don’t need to worry about myself going out and trying to do anything stupid, or driving too fast, or whatever. I am also aware that there are irresponsible people out there on the road, and I must pay attention to them.

The fear lies not in me, but in what people are going to think as I’m learning to ride better. Will I accidentally corner too wide, and look dumb? Will I have to slow down a little too much before a turn? Will I be a little over-cautious and look silly driving a little under the speed limit?

It sounds stupid when you write it down, but that’s what’s really been stopping me FOR YEARS. Is how silly I’ll look, even though I don’t really imagine there’ll be any problems. It’s just irrational, but it’s similar to how I approach almost everything I do.

So this is step one of a long and difficult journey out of fear and reticence to try anything new. Who’s with me?

January 10, 2012 

Let’s talk about . . . People

No. Not like that. I mean people we meet, spend time with, befriend, and ultimately, drift apart from. It’s a fact of life, not everyone you were friends with back in elementary school is still your friend now. Not your first crush, not your second crush, not your best friend who you dodged all kinds of trouble with back in high school.  People move apart. Simple as that.

A recent conversation with Rachelskirts brought a lot of thoughts about this phenomenon to the surface, and I think it’s something worth visiting, as we enter a new year, when we’re all usually feeling a bit over-nostalgic anyhow. She pointed me to this post by Sarah Brown  (who I think we can credit as being a major influence for Rachelskirts). It’s short, so it’s worth a read, but to summarize: letting go of people is tough because they impacted you so deeply, you hold out for hope that you can always be close.

This is an exceptionally sunny and, potentially, heartbreaking approach to the matter. And this way of coping with these events is not without merit. It espouses a more optimistic outlook. It makes your memories more keen, less dull. It allows for the full spectrum of emotion in your thought-life as you reminisce when you pass an old haunt: coffee shop, school, perhaps even motel. You feel deeply, but it also means that when things come to an end you hurt deeply. You long for those good times again, and you have trouble letting go. A deeper felt hurt lends to more fond memories of the past. You live in the moment, and then in the past. But in the moment, you’re really living. You just have to make sure not to get stuck in the past.

I, on the other hand, don’t really deal with the situation that way. I’m not very good at living in the moment. I tend to live in the future, always looking for what’s next. I don’t mean to say I’m constantly unhappy with my present–quite the contrary, I feel like I’m in a pretty good position in life right now–but that does not mean that I stop and try to look into the future for what’s next. The same goes with people. I suppose I always have some subconscious reticence to forge deep ties with my peers.

I have had any friends, many good friends along the way. Many people who have left impregnable marks upon me and who I am, as I have upon them. But people are transient. Many of these people I’ll never see again, never even talk to again. Sure, there’s maybe the odd “Happy Birthday” on Facebook, but that doesn’t really mean much. And while some would view it as sad that these connections are lost, I just see it as a naturally occurring part of life. People flow in and out of our lives, no one more or less important than any one else, just some sticking around longer than others. We learn from, grow with, and impress ourselves on each other, but then it ends. They go do the same with someone else, and so do you. Or at least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

I guess maybe it sounds cold and cynical, but that’s not really it at all. It’s just an acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, it’s okay to let someone grow into who they’re going to be, and it’s okay to let yourself grow into who you’re going to be, and that often means you’re growing in two different directions. In many ways, you helped shape those paths for each other, if you’re feeling the cosmic irony of it all.

But every person from the past is worth remembering, worth thinking about, but ultimately not worth regretting the decisions you’ve made that led to your separation. Because those decisions got you to where you can make new friends, as long as you’re willing to let the old ones go. These too will likely not last forever, but you know what? That’s okay. It’s just another step, and it’s your job to help each other get where you’re going, wherever that may lead.

So. Let’s talk. How do you handle the ebbs and flows of people and friends through your life? Do you cling for dear life, or do you just see where it’ll take you. Do you mourn the loss, or do you get excited for what’s next? Am I full of crap? Maybe! Let me know.

Let’s talk.

September 10, 2011 

A Decade Here and Gone

I am a young man. Impetuous, a true idiot, and far from wise. I say this not to be self-deprecating, or to garner any specific sympathy or support. I say this so you may forgive me if I come across as glib or overly morose. I also say this to make it clear how obvious this situation is.

10 years. A milestone for myriad occasions. High school graduations, marriages, employment. A nice round number: long enough to have seen many changes, not so long as to make you forget where it all began, so you can still recognize change. 10 years since two planes flew into NYC skyscrapers, one into the Pentagon, and one into Terra Firma, PA. Truly a turning point for our nation, but in retrospect, it seems like we may have made a wrong turn.

Historically, tragedy has been a force of growth and definition for our country. Pearl Harbor, for example, galvanized a nation to war, proving beyond doubt our military and economic prowess, which netted us global dominance in many arenas. Granted, we already held international respect for many of our accomplishments, specifically our burgeoning trade and industry. WWII, though, showed the world that we meant business, and while the attach in Hawaii was tragic, it slingshot us to greatness. At least for a time.

Countless regional disasters have also served to gird the loins of American prosperity. The Chicago fires, the major earthquakes in California, etc. Each of these led to a reanalysis of laws, policies, and they were expanded–sometimes created–to create a better place, safer and more conducive to our lifestyle. And after these, we succeeded. We became wealthy, successful, and respected. Not by everyone, of course, but what country is? Then came 2001. We were coming off of a largely economically successful presidency (and there are always arguments on either side of that issue), and hopes were high that it would continue. Then came September 11.

The events of that day plunged our country into a panicked frenzy. Mobs were attacking any brown person around. Merchants were gouging consumers, who were equally scared. Our people were hurting our own out of fear, and maybe even a little greed, but even with that, we eventually learned to quell the violence. But many never learned to quell the hatred. Our news media, the purported voices of reason, spread fear and hate for ratings, and what’s worse, there are people who take the pundits at face value. They spew hatred and intolerance, and people just eat it up. Internalize it. Realize it. As a result, our reputations has become that we are the pulse of intolerance and ignorance. And, simply, it’s repulsive.

It’s now 10 years later, and a lot has happened. We entered two unending theaters of war, we found and captured one dictatorial leader, who was hung amidst celebration by his mistreated people. Then, we actually found and killed the man believed to be behind the very attacks that happened 10 years ago. We killed him, too. Amidst these military victories, we have also given up a number of civil rights, and pieces of our sense of decency. We’ve allowed our disabled and elderly to be humiliated at the hands of under-trained and overzealous airport security guards. We are as confused and scared and flummoxed as ever, and this is after 10 (T-E-N) years.

The media will be talking all day about how we should be honoring the memories of the people who died. But we’ve done a pretty poor job of that in the last decade haven’t we, then? Our grand memorial at ground zero has barely been started, largely due to money grubbing and squabbling amongst contractors. We have let fear take over our media. There is still wide-spread and unilateral hatred of anyone with brown skin. What have we become, really?

We have not honored these peoples’ lives. And we won’t ever, not until we step back and reprioritize. We are losing money hand over fist to two wars, despite our crippling debt, which is made worse by inactive political leaders, too powerful corporate lobbies, and corporations grabbing for every last dollar without giving back to the communities which fostered their grown from their infancies. It’s made worse by desperation and frustration of the millions looking for jobs. It’s made worse by helplessness and hopelessness in change. We really need to just step back and look at what it means to be American. To be us, not to police the world, not to tell any other country what government is good and what is bad.

We need to just “do us,” for a while, at least until we’re back on our feet and not still reeling from poor decision making and a sucker punch that happened 10 years ago. We need to regroup, refocus, and look at what we lost. Then, we need to move forward. Build from that loss, and do what we’ve always done: come back better and stronger than ever before. But how?

I don’t know. How do you get out of the wars we’ve started? How do you step back and regroup? I have no idea, but something’s got to give, and it cannot be the already flagging American vigor and livelihood. The successful plan is the plan which brings us back to our roots. The plan that reignites the ingenuity and sheer force of will that brought us through so many tragedies in the past. That’s the plan I’ll be looking for.

**NOTE: I understand that not everyone who will read this is an American. I am, though, so please excuse me when I say “our country.” I do not mean to imply that you are included in the collective, just me and the rest of the Americans.

Older Entries »