Friday, November 28, 2008

 

DEFINING MARRIAGE

Considerable caution should be exercised, and some trepidation felt, as this delicate topic is approached by any writer who is not already an ideologue on the subject. Most people in our country are separated into different camps on this. It seems now that this separation is into two militant, armed opposing camps, with a third somewhere in the middle wondering why all the fuss and turmoil.

At issue seems to the “all or none” phenomenon so often present in such controversies.

The gay and lesbian activists among us have pressed for popular and legal acceptance of a new definition of “marriage” to include same-sex couples on an equal and undistinguishable basis as traditional marriage. At the same time there are social and religious conservatives among us who believe that conjugal relationships by any name between same-sex couples are sinful, denounced by the Bible, and that all such should still be against the law.

Most of those in the middle, apart from either of the polar groups, tend to question the reasons for the big battle. They say, “Okay, we don’t understand all about this phenomenon of sexual preference, so let us be at least tolerant, if not accepting, of some kind of civil union arrangement where such couples may have certain appropriate legal rights and privileges.”

However, activist gays and lesbians apparently do not want “acceptance,” and certainly not just “tolerance.” They want recognition and equality, and they see the only way to obtain this is to usurp the accepted societal and legal term of “marriage,” long defined as between a man and a woman.” Activists are taking a hard-line, polarizing position on terminology.

As stated earlier, the other polar group wants to grant no legal or social status at all to gays and lesbians, generally considering them as little better than outcasts in the dominant culture.

It is true that the term “marriage” has had a well-understood, clear definition legally, socially, and in religion for centuries. Most centrists tend to resent activists’ efforts to encroach upon that term and its definition. They see no reason for changing this long-standing definition, while most are willing to recognize same-sex unions under a different term.

Generally speaking, gay and lesbian activists alienate more people than they win by insisting upon the complete capitulation of social tradition to their own wishes. This is a rather unrealistic expectation. Activist conduct, demands, and slogans often turn away persons in the middle.

The activists use of the courts in an effort to overturn social, religious, and legal tradition may be viewed as extreme by the centrist group. Most people do not view the “equal protection” provisions of the 14th amendment to the Constitution (having to do with treatment of former slaves) as speaking to sexual preference or same-sex marriage, even though courts may have a rationale for assertions to the contrary.

Understanding the thinking of these three groups, both polar and moderate, should help us find a resolution to this festering social and legal problem. Reasonable persons should be able to resolve this issue, but only if there is some spirit of compromise. That has been lacking.

Perhaps the huge barrier in the way is the dual or tri-partite status of marriage in the western world, particularly the United States. Think of the following sequence:

We pay a fee for a marriage license at the courthouse, take any necessary tests, and obtain a license. Then we usually go to a minister, perhaps in front of our church congregation, to take our marriage vows. This latter step sanctifies our marriage under God. On the other hand, we might take our marriage license to a judge, court clerk, or other authorized civil authority, and have it legally confirmed. Either pathway leads finally to the registration of the license in official court records, defining us as “married” for all legal and social purposes, with rights and privileges appertaining thereto.

Thus, marriage is both a religious event and a legal contract. Further, it has had a generally accepted social definition for ages. However, there is also some basis for viewing “marriage” as either a religious or a legal arrangement.

There is another recent, although not well known, arrangement which appears to bear upon the definition of marriage somewhat. Practiced largely by religious oldsters who do not want legal complications, there is a religious ceremony of “commitment,” not “marriage.” In the religious context this has a similar meaning with marriage, but in that context only. It has no legal status.

To this observer, if we can accept socially the (non-marriage) partnership union of opposite sex couples in a strictly religious sense only, without legal definition or connotations, then perhaps we should be able to recognize the union of same-sex couples on a strictly legal basis, leaving the religious aspects completely out of the equation. Neither meets the traditional definition of “marriage,” nor is that necessary if the term is not employed.

Again, the concept of “civil union” seems to fit the bill of compromise. A new term may be needed. If “civil union” is not preferred, perhaps “spousal partnership” or “domestic partners” might do.

Again, most moderates are ready for some reasonable solution to the “all or none” dilemma. This issue should not continue to divide our nation. There needs to be some compromise.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Sunday, November 23, 2008

 

END OF THE GOP?

Several television republican political pundits have said boldly, “If the Congress lets the American auto companies go broke, it is end of the republican party.”

As much as some would like to see the demise of the grand obstructionist party, the ruin of American manufacturing is too big a price to pay. The havoc wreaked by bankruptcy of the American car manufacturers is too much for the country to take. If this happens, this nation will be thrown into a decade of depression, only then to emerge as a changed country.

While the Bush administration has been merrily going around pumping billions into banks and insurance companies with too little accountability, he and his treasury secretary are balking at putting some of the money into saving millions of jobs affecting the total national economy.

Just because the money passed to the banks has not yet had the effects desired, because the banks have hoarded it to themselves and not loosened the credit market, the American people and its representatives in Congress want to turn their backs on the next great need of the country. The Bush administration is showing no leadership, even leaving town, and the republicans in Congress have announced they will block any effort to aid the auto makers.

Democrats in Congress have been unwilling to challenge the republican bloc, not wanting to put up a bill and have it squelched on Senate rules by the 49 member republican minority. Democrats think that they may well need the new Congress and the new president before anything can pass.

In the meantime the democrats choose to join the republican chorus denigrating the auto company management for travelling to Washington in corporate jet airplanes. What a sorry reason for not doing your duty!

Democrats have demanded a business plan for a way out of difficulty from the auto managers. That is all well and good, and it shows responsibility and accountability. However, it may also be seen as a ruse for postponing action until another day.

While condemning our own manufacturers and trade unions, we might want to take a look at our tax loopholes and our trade policies which allow overseas operations to undermine domestic production. These policies are taking the American standard of living downward toward the average in the world.

If the big three auto makers go down, decimating the American economy, democrats probably would like to establish fault clearly with the republican party.

This would indeed be quite clear. The problem has arisen during the eight year Bush republican tenure. Things have gone bad on the republicans’ watch. Republicans in office refused to aid the auto makers. Republicans in Congress blocked democrat efforts to save American manufacturing.

Republicans may well end up with another Hoover era to live down. But we do not want to go through this mess with them.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Sunday, November 16, 2008

 

REPUBLICANS IN DISARRAY

The republican party appears to be in disarray. They do not recognize any single leader or leadership set, nor do they now subscribe to any common ideology or set of interests. It is doubtful that their last platform represents any unanimity of thinking.

They are without positive, intelligent leaders with integrity on issues and positions.

They are arguing amongst themselves as to the causes of their recent defeat, and they are arguing about the true character and the future of their party. There are many voices of dissonance, but no chorus.

Candidate McCain is no longer their leader, if indeed he ever was. His misbegotten choice of a vice president has been nothing but trouble for the party, and promises to be more trouble in the future.

Palin’s futile attempts to take over as the leader and spokesperson for the party would be amusing, if the prospect were not so terrifying. With her actions and her voice, she continues to raise her negatives within the party, as well as with the rest of the country.

Some republicans say that it is time to cast off the control ropes of the militant right wing fundamentalists. It is way past time, of course, but it is doubtful that the party will give up that dependable base. All they have to do is float some red herring issue about gay marriage, Muslims, God on the coins, God in the courthouse, or God in the pledge, and the gullible fundamentalist church groups all dash to the polls to vote republican.

There is a place in a democracy for traditional conservative views and values. They sometimes slow the pace of change, or they may shorten the arc of the pendulum as it swings back and forth in acceptability of mores in society or styles of governance. Divisiveness is not a positive contribution.

There is no place in an ethical democracy for the kind of negative, personal attack campaign as just waged by republicans. There is no place for the “swift-boat” tactics of lies and distortions. And, there is no place for the lies and distortions of dirty e-mail rumors and allegations.

There is no place for “socialist” name-calling, and certainly the McCarthy era of “guilt by association” should have been long since gone, never to be resurrected. Palin and some republicans still want to pursue these discredited forms of accusation and innuendo.

Conservatives must get beyond their role as obstructionists to addressing needed progress. They must also rise above their “old oaken bucket” delusion that everything in the far past was better.

Their agenda needs to include positive steps forward, not merely the tearing down of past progressive social programs, such as the misguided efforts at Social Security privatization under the guise of reform. Privatizing Medicare through costly commercial subsidies is another example.

Republicans really need some positive programs for improvement and change. Tax cutting is not a positive program. Certain versions of tax reform might be positive, however, if not biased again toward business or the wealthy. Ending corporate welfare to special interests, and getting lobbyists under control could be positive.

Stopping earmarks would be a good move, if worthy projects could be properly screened in public view and put into public works or infrastructure bills. These should be based upon needs rather than special interests.

Civility needs to be brought back into political discourse. This applies to all sides of the issues and all parties. All of us are guilty, perhaps some more than others.

Regrettably, the shrill voices of hostility and hate are raised far too often. It is too bad that such voices tend to capture attention – and a followership.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Monday, November 10, 2008

 

POUND FOOLISH

As Benjamin Franklin said in Poor Richard’s Almanac, one can be penny wise and pound foolish. Such has been the case with the republican-led Oklahoma legislature these past few sessions.

The legislature has ignored and postponed obvious fiscal problems as they have gone merrily along the path of tax cutting and pleasing their base. Maybe someone should hang a sign over their head, reminiscent of the last national campaign, saying “the state first” or “the people first.” This would complete the circle of hypocrisy.

The state is moving steadily backward, falling behind its peers. Public education is hanging last, or is it second or third from last, in financing. A lucrative private prison industry is thriving in Oklahoma at taxpayer expense because the legislature will not provide funds for state prisons. They won’t stop putting people in prisons with their tough on crime stance, but they will not provide alcohol and drug rehab services nor will they provide domestic abuse or child protection services as needed.

This past week the higher education system asked for money to operate the colleges and universities so as not to have to keep raising tuition and creating financial difficulties for Oklahoma students and families. One of our nicer republican legislators countered with the word that common education needs money and prisons need money, so there’s a problem.

He could have added that roads and highways need money, but that the legislature is too cheap to provide any of it. Oklahoma voters are too short sighted either to vote the necessary taxes (such as the gas tax referendum), or to get rid of the tax cutters.

While state services are suffering, the legislature’s method of financing capital building needs and highway improvements has been passage of bonds payable from future operating funds. This just puts off paying the bill, without any new revenue in to cover the expense as it comes due.

What has been happening to tuition in Oklahoma’s colleges and universities during the last ten years is disgraceful. President Boren points out that five years earlier, state appropriations supplied half his budget needs. Now it has 16% from the state, and even less for medical programs. Not too many years ago, state appropriations supplied 80% of the operating funds for two-year colleges. Now it is about 50%.

The state’s universities are no longer affordable for the average family without financial aid. Even the two-year colleges, once nicknamed “opportunity colleges” because of low cost, are no longer affordable to students from working families without government loans and financial aid.
Our young people are finishing college deeper in debt because we won’t pay our fair share of the cost of public higher education.

With all the economic data showing that educational levels, as well as quality of educational services, are the greatest boon to growth and prosperity, no deference is shown to that reality. Republicans do not recognize education as an investment rather than just another expense.

What do we hear from republican legislative leaders about their agenda for the upcoming session?

Nothing encouraging or progressive is being said, unfortunately. Instead, we hear them talking of their same old agenda – reforming workers’ comp so as to make it easier on employers and harder on workers, and the twin of this -- which is to keep consumers out of the courts so they cannot sue businesses or service providers for damages perpetrated on the public.

Then, of course, there is always talk of their “family values” agenda, which translates into putting government into the midst of family affairs, particularly women’s private and personal reproductive decisions.

Sometimes conservatives may play a useful role in society by limiting the rate of progress or influencing the direction of change, but typically they do poorly at actually governing. They have no program to assist people in making progress.

The only progressive programs hatched by republicans are those geared to help business, often at the expense of the people. Of course, they must strive always to keep their right wing religious constituency intact by attempting to legislate religious tenets into law.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

 

AUDACITY OF HOPE

That vision must capture the American dream,
And in the teary eyes of its people gleam.

EEV – 1996

Oh, the audacity of hope! Hope swells eternal within the human breast, and it impels us onward toward our vision of destiny. So has it happened in these United States of America.

The gallantry of Barack Obama in extending the friendly hand of reconciliation on election eve was matched only by the graciousness of Senator McCain in response. Strangely enough, President Bush rose a bit in the eyes of this observer, as he made his welcoming and perspective speech in the Rose Garden on the morning after.

America is truly a wonder in a world where so often power changes hands by violence.

Not simply to offer another set of comments from the land of punditry, this writer would like to cite some personal observations of election day and its aftermath.

Perhaps most touching the heart strings of emotion was the sight of the old warrior, Jesse Jackson, standing toward the forefront of the Chicago celebration with tears streaming unabashedly down his cheeks. That which could not be accomplished by the confrontational tactics of civil rights activism had occurred naturally in the emergence of a new, dynamic, young leader from his race who successfully touched hands, hearts, and minds of the electorate to win the coveted prize of the presidency.

One could not help but note the conciliatory stance of such assertive civil rights activists as the Rev. Al Sharpton, who had followed after Jackson in previous unsuccessful efforts to capture a place in the presidential race. These less popular black Americans took great pride in the accomplishment of one who had come into leadership through his appeal to all the people.

America has become a bitterly divided nation. The negative campaign of personal attacks and the slimy back-door e-mail rumor mill carried out against Barrack Obama have added to the intensity of that division.

Are we to continue the hostility born in the dirty tactics against the Clinton presidency and given impetus by the 2000 election in Florida? Many still consider the election stolen by the Bushites, partisan state officials, and a partisan Supreme Court.

According to an editorial writer in the New York Times, we can expect a bitter, angry republican party core to become dominant if Obama wins. More moderate republicans will be shunned, he thinks, while this tight-knit, hard-core right wing base will be in party control. If so, the writer argues, republicans will be in a minority in the nation for years to come.

Mr. Obama has already been stretching forth his hand in political reconciliation. Let us hope that sensible republicans will accept that, and that they will join in the reform process of making this a better country for all the citizens. Continuing to emote about a smaller, laissez-faire government with its hands off business and finance, while touting government intrusion into private, personal, and bedroom affairs, will not work.

It is time for Americans to come together to bring a new era into our national government.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?