Category: These Are The Crazy Years

Look, I don't honestly give a flying fuck about states being ordered to let LGBT people "marry".  Because I don't think the state ought to be involved in marriage, in any case.

The problem I have with non-traditional marriage — by which I mean anything other than one man one woman — is that there are people out there who hold traditional religious beliefs who should not be required by the state to change their attitude regarding same.  There is that little thing called the First Amendment, after all, and it means that the government has no say over your religious beliefs.  If you want to worship Satan, that's your kink, just don't wave it in my face.*

The counter-argument is made, of course, to the effect that the majority wave their sexuality and religious beliefs in the minority's face all day every day 24/7/365 world without end amen.  And yeah, that's true; before about 10 years ago, most folks producing popular culture understood that the 97% of us who are straight have little or no interest in major characters in every TV comedy and drama being gay and out of the closet.  Lately, though, you'd think gays were at least 50% of the population, because every show has a flamer or two who get a lot of attention.  (Modern Family, I'm looking at you.  Just as a 'f'r'instance.)

The counter-argument goes on to point out that there are straight couples out there who 1) don't have children and 2) even if they do, they can't manage to stay together and end up divorced.  I don't really consider #1 a problem, not just because my marriage fits that description, but also because the fairy-tale shit about finding your soulmate when you're in your 20s and young enough to consider settling down and starting a family doesn't always come true.  I did not find my wife until I was 40 and she was 42.**  We were not about to start a family at that age.  (Good thing, too, because we'd have teenagers now and be looking at putting them through college when we'd really rather be thinking about retiring.)

#2, divorce, is a real problem, but I think it exists primarily because the previous generation was quick to pull the trigger on ending marriages that ended up being "inconvenient" (mostly because the woman decided she didn't need the husband, just his money) and the courts were far too amenable to agreeing to let the divorces proceed.  I know a couple of women who had children and then divorced their husbands because their husbands, quite reasonably, expected them to take care of the children to the detriment of what they considered to be their career path.  Abuse was claimed (mental in all cases) but I suspect that what was considered to be abuse was simply an old-fashioned expectation of motherhood being more important than a career.***

Anyway, gays point at these two problems of heterosexuality in the modern age and clamor for the same right to marry (and I assume, to divorce) as straights.  If marriage doesn't require that the female have children, and if marriage can be dissolved at just about any time for just about any reason, then gays may have a point, even if it's ill-made.

What is truly sad about the whole situation, though, is that being married without children is a pretty big burden.  There is that little thing known as the "marriage penalty", and it's meant that my wife and I have had to pay the government thousands of dollars in taxes over the past decade and a half that we would never have paid had we remained single.  I keep joking, in fact, that we really need to get divorced for tax purposes.  My wife doesn't laugh but it really isn't funny, the moreso because it's true.

Because the actual benefits of what we call marriage today are primarily civil and not religious in nature, I would argue (as I have done at the beginning of this article and as I have done before, fairly consistently) that it is time for the state to get out of the business of sanctioning marriage.  Let all "marriage" simply be a contract between two people, sex-neutral, wherein responsibilities (including those of child-raising) of each party are defined, merging of assets is delineated, and provision is made to redistribute those assets should the contract be terminated (divorce).  This could be reduced to a standard form, similar to the Jewish ketubah (which does in fact include provisions for divorce).

Once the relationship between two people is reduced to a contract, which can be handled by lawyers and recorded with the county recorder for a modest fee, any ceremony of solemnization becomes optional (one assumes that the lawyers for both parties, as officers of the court, could be empowered to handle that) and the religious community is then off the hook and may perform whatever ceremonies that it sees fit upon couples who fit its requirements for same.  No longer would a priest, minister, or rabbi**** feel cornered or coerced into performing ceremonies that their scriptural constitutions forbid, and their congregations could rest easy in the expectation that the two gay boys (or girls) who wanted to be married in their place of worship had no case whereby to sue them into compliance with some politically-correct statute.

Mark me well — If your particular denomination smiles on gay marriage, party on.  That's your cross to bear, and you can defend it when you're called to account at the end of time.  The important thing to me is that you stop trying to tell MY particular congregation or creed that it MUST accept marriage between anything other than one man and one woman.  And the way to start putting an end to that is to remove marriage from the realm of government sanction and make it simply a legal contract between two people — not between two people and the government.

_______________

* Don't start with me about peyote buds and ritual sacrifice and that kind of shite.  Civil code covers most of that.  Murder is still murder, whether or not it was done to satisfy some elder god or suchlike.

** Yes, for me, the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything was 42.

*** We could go into the whole idea of women seemingly dominating the workforce in a day and age when an awful lot of breadwinner-type men are out of work, but I know too many strong and independent career-minded women who would probably kick my ass if I bitched about that. So never mind.  But as has been said many times, the future belongs to those who show up for it, and choosing not to have children — particularly if you could have done when you were young enough to build a family — does potentially have consequences.

**** I've left "imam" off of this list because I can't think of anyone of LGBT status, even some of the more liberal nutbag gays, who would have the balls to walk into a mosque and ask an imam to marry them.  Which is another problem for another day.

I mean, I was thinking that earlier anyway, when I had to drive downtown and was listening to Rush go on about this bill in California that purports to give same-sex couples insurance coverage for infertility treatments. But that is, as they say, another story.

No, I’ve been seeing ads on blogs lately like this one:

Now, come on.  “Free Energy”, the great bugaboo of Evil Global Corporations, like the ones that stole the guy’s invention for making your internal combustion engine run on dihydrogen monoxide.  Yeah.

But I was looking at that thing and thinking to myself, “That’s a wireless/wired Ethernet module of some sort.  How is that going to make energy at all, let alone ‘free’ energy?”

So I googled “OPTO 22”.  (See the label on the bottom.)  And it turns out that the picture is of an “Energy monitoring unit with Demand Response capability”.  Which makes a certain amount of sense; it’s going to monitor your energy use and talk to other modules elsewhere in your system that could be shut down at times of high demand.  But there are two problems with this wonder of the modern age.

1) This is an industrial — not residential — control that costs over a grand, MSRP.  And it doesn’t operate in a vacuum; you’d need other expensive modules to control your home appliances, e.g., your air conditioner, your refrigerator, your freezer, ceiling fans, lights, etc.

2) Your local electric utility probably has a program to install something like this that turns your air conditioner off during the day during periods of peak load…and they’ll install it for free.*

So I deduce two things from this, and adduce something we already know.

A) Someone** is trying to sell you something you don’t need, that won’t actually do what they claim, to wit, “produce free energy for your home”; and

B) Power utilities, far from being scared of such things, actually LOVE them because they reduce peak load, which is a major problem particularly in the summer when everyone is running air conditioning.

C) Caveat emptor — because TANSTAAFL.

_______________________

* Mine does, and they bug the hell out of me all the time to let them do so.

** Likely not the controller manufacturer themselves, who appear to be more interested in selling to industry than to Joe Blow in the little bungalow down the street.  Someone is probably reselling this stuff and making a killing off of little old retiree types in Florida.  Admittedly I did not click on the ad, even though it was on a certain well-known Filipina journalist’s blog site and the link from there is probably mostly harmless.  Oh, hell, whatever — I did click on it, and it goes to some outfit called “Power4Patriots”.  Geez.  Why not just try to sell me gold for my retirement portfolio and be done with it?  I think the gold guys are more honest.

Lesbians Around The World In Mourning After Dolly Parton States The She’s Not Gay.

I’d imagine, though, that St. RAH isn’t spinning in his grave.  He predicted this, and we ignored him.  Woe are us.

H/T.

Teenage Girl Stabbed At Anti-Violence Rally
Leftists Groups Start Campaign Against Amazon.
Wal-Mart is apparently now “OK”
Perry Slammed For Criticizing Increase in Money Supply
Administration Says Inflationary Printing of Money “OK”
President to Perry: “Shut Up”, He Explained
Green Industry Paradox: Nobody Wants Your Crappy Products

So when does Nehemiah Scudder show up?

Judging from the little comment flood a couple of posts down, I hit a nerve when I asserted that Texas had no right or legal ability to secede.
But I asserted that because my belief is — and I believe history backs me up — secession is for losers. (Note: We did not secede from England. We revolted. Please do not conflate the two, no matter how much you want to believe that the Civil War was a “second American Revolution”.) Moreover, the vast majority of those who advocate secession strike me as hotheads who would look for just about any excuse to re-establish the Republic of Texas…not that the Republic of Texas was, historically, all that wonderful a place to begin with. Else why would its leaders have petitioned the United States for statehood? They understood that Texas, on its own, was going nowhere fast. They argued for a clause in their treaty that ostensibly gave Texas the right to leave the Union if it found good reason, because they knew statehood didn’t have a prayer in Texas without it, and moreover they agreed to another clause that would give the United States the right to divide Texas into five states. This does not sound like the action of a strong and robust State, but rather of a fairly weak one that is looking for protection from the nasty men with guns on the other side of the Rio Grande. The problem with most of the history of that period is that it was written by triumphialists of one or another stripe, and by their lights the Republic of Texas negotiated with the United States as an equal, and from strength. I say nothing was farther from the truth; the Republic of Texas wanted the United States Army to guarantee its southern border, so it took the only road that led to that outcome. With head held high, and an unenforceable guarantee that they could renege on the agreement if they didn’t like the results, Texans became part of an indissoluble Union.
Frankly, I place secessionists in the same round file as Randians. The problem with Randians is that their heroine and goddess, Ayn Rand, was not a native of our shores, and as such, she did not think like one of us. She was a Russian who had escaped the early days of Communism. And she thought like a Russian peasant — lie down and take it (socialism) till you can’t take it anymore, then dream of a Utopia where everyone is enlightened and free and just waiting for the rest of the country to collapse so you can walk out and teach the poor benighted souls how to stand up for themselves as good Objectivists.
Secessionists, like Objectivists, strike me as false patriots, who want to take their ball and go home because they don’t get their way.
As I have said repeatedly, I used to be an Objectivist. And then I grew up.
Similarly, I used to think secession sounded like a great idea. Then I became trained as a historian and started reading about the Civil War. If you have not read about the Civil War, I suggest reading Shelby Foote. You can’t get more sympathetic to the South and still be rooting for the North to win than Foote. And throughout his three volumes on the War, you cannot but conclude that the South made a terrible, terrible mistake in underestimating the North. Eighty years after the Civil War began, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy would observe, “We have awakened a sleeping giant and have instilled in him a terrible resolve.” Yamamoto had studied in America and knew Americans. I cannot believe that he was unaware of how the Union, for all its faults, had prosecuted the war against the South, and how much more remorseless the United States would be against an external enemy, and that this knowledge did not inform his attitude.
In the 21st century, there are a number of things that mitigate against secession. One is that we are linked so tightly together by communications. The telegraph shortened the Civil War by months if not years. The railroad got troops and stores to the front faster than anytime in previous history. How much shorter would be an insurrection today when face-to-face communication can take place over thousands of miles? When military units are linked down to the private on the firing line with Internet-connected battle gear? When troops get to battle in all kinds of different vehicles on a vast network of improved roads? All you Turtledove fans out there need to think about this. (Parenthetically, I don’t read Turtledove, because I was trained as a historian. We don’t do “what if”. We do “what happened”.)
Other problems with secession are things like interconnected infrastructure. (Why did Russia invade Georgia? Interconnected infrastructure.) Telephone systems, the electrical grid, gas and oil pipelines, the Internet…all interconnected across the fruited plain. I mentioned in the comments to that earlier post that the United States is greater than the sum of its parts. Interconnected infrastructure is one of the reasons for that.
As I also suggested in the comments below, Russia and China are licking their chops at the thought of the breakup of the United States. The rest of the world is probably rooting for it, too, but that will stop pretty fast if it actually happens.
But I suppose what really gripes me about secession talk is that Barack Hussein Obama has been in office all of 90 days, and already a bunch of hotheads are talking secession.
Boys and girls, the South talked secession for thirty or forty years.
If you keep this up, BHO will be able to walk what he talked: “I won.”
There are mid-term elections coming up in 19 months. If conservatives and libertarians can’t come up with winning candidates in this political atmosphere, they have a problem that secession isn’t going to cure.
Point to Rand all you want. Rand was as bad as the people she inveighed against.
Point to Heinlein all you want. But notice that Heinlein never wrote about insurrection on Earth except in Revolt in 2100. And that story was a direct result of the Crazy Years and the advent of the Prophet. The only other story of revolt that Heinlein wrote was The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. And that revolt succeeded for the same reasons the American Revolution had succeeded 300 years before — primarily logistical reasons that do not obtain within the American nation today, plus a literal deus ex machina. As I suggested before, the Heinlein story that has more bearing on the direction we seem to be heading is Friday. And I don’t want to live in that world.
Secession is a fairy tale, folks. If you’re honest with yourselves, you’ll see that.
Comments will remain open for 24 hours.
UPDATE, 4/21/2009, 7:53AM: Don’t say I didn’t give you a fair chance to rebut. Comments closed.