I spent the weekend on a “spiritual retreat” with a bunch of guys who were all a lot tougher than your average Greenwichite (particularly this one) – I’d guess that at least 20% had seen hard time, and another 10 15% had at least briefly been on the wrong side of a jail cell’s bars. The tattoos on display would have made a sailor jealous and the language – well, it wasn’t the type heard around my yacht club, I assure you.
So I was amused and gratified to see the reaction of these men when, as we filed into the dining hall for Friday night supper, they saw a book written and left there by the local Catholic priest in charge of the camp we were renting, entitled something like “Homosexuality – the Drive to Suicide”. As one, they scorned the book, its premise and its author. “Screw him” was one of the milder phrases i heard.
Now, the group I was with encourages tolerance and acceptance of others (this blog is obviously written by my alter-ego), so I’m not claiming that all tattooed ex-cons reject the teachings of the moral right, but these did. And, over the weekend, as talk drifted to politics, they also seemed to scorn politicians of all stripes as lying, power-hungry mobsters trying to steal their money and tell them what to do.
All of which made me think that the time may be coming when a political party that preaches fiscal discipline only and rejects all attempts to legislate a particular morality could clean up in this country. The Republicans have been so fearful of losing their “Christian Right” base that they’ve alienated millions of voters who don’t share and won’t tolerate that vision. And the Democrats, fearful of losing their leftist fringe who demand unilateral disarmament and a claim to every dollar an individual earns have also alienated millions of voters. In short, these two parties have gone far right and far left and abandoned a huge number of people in the middle. I think someone could claim that middle and gain 51% of the vote (or at least 49%, plus a cooperative Supreme Court) and win the next election.
And that would be fun.
Difficulty with what you’re saying is that one person’s freedom to live as he chooses often comes at the expense of another’s being forced to accept it and even pay for it.
What does it mean to, say, permit marriage between two people of the same sex? From their point of view, it’s the freedom to marry. But from the point of view of an employer who thinks marriage should be between people of opposite sex only and wants to deny insurance benefits to the partner, it means being forced to accept an arrangment he/she deems deeply wrong. When advocates say “What business is it of your who I marry?” I think they’re missing the point: They want to make it everyone’s business, and force acceptance on others. Face it, that’s why civil unions aren’t good enough for same-sex-marriage advocates; it’s marriage or nothing.
This is why I believe in libertarianism. I’d like a system where a person can “marry” his dog if he wants but the rest of us don’t have to acknowledge it as valid.
I think it is worth noting however that the concept of marriage being a function of one man and one woman has been pushed from the center to the fringe right….what is that?
We’re on the same page, Helsa
So keep the state put of it, let people marry who (or what) they please, without state sanction, forced insurance coverage, etc.
“from the point of view of an employer who thinks marriage should be between people of opposite sex only and wants to deny insurance benefits to the partner, it means being forced to accept an arrangment he/she deems deeply wrong.”
WOW. Basically you’re saying that it should be legal for a company to discriminate as to who qualifies for health insurance coverage based on their sexual orientation. Most large companies already allow domestic partners of employees to be covered under their plan, so your argument is not only discriminatory and backward, it is also pointless. And comparing a man marrying his dog to the marriage of two human beings? Pathetic.
I know plenty of people who married dogs, JD – my Pal Nancy among them!
If ya wanna hang out w/felons, RHC’s a lot closer, and the first round’s on Walt.
Everyone knows white collar criminals – a dime a dozen in Greenwich. Reformed armed robbers, car thieves, rapist, now that’s interesting. None of which rules out Walt, I suppose. And the art work in Moodus is better – not a friggin’ Labrador retriever to be seen.
A party that preaches fiscal discipline and rejects all attempts to legislate a particular morality would indeed be a dream come true. But this is more difficult than it appears. On most of the really difficult issues, the lines get blurred. Is it fiscally conservative to provide health care to mothers in labor who have no way to pay for it? Is that done for moral reasons, and if so, should it be stopped?
Excellent points, Chris. Will never happen, though. The kooky left and kooky right are too entrenched in their respective political parties. Regarding marriage, why is the government even in that business? Live and let live. It’s always a joy to hear the self-appointed moralists pontificate about the “sanctity” of marriage…yeah, as if heterosexual marriage (divorce rate still 50%?) is such a stable institution.
I usually avoid the political discussions here, but I have to say Helsa’s argument doesn’t fly with me. 50 years ago someone could have made the same argument about blacks and whites marrying. Would you accept a racist saying “Blacks and whites can call themselves married, just don’t make me pay for it”? The time is coming when same sex couples are going to be viewed in the same light. Given the overwhelming support of gay relationships by the younger generations, that time is coming sooner than you might think!
Another anon is exactly right.
And this sort of thinking by Helsa is part of why I’m alienated by the Republican party. And I’m a serious fiscal conservative — one who found George Bush to be the biggest Big Democrat we’ve had in office since FDR. Disgusting.
The GOP turns legislators like Jeff Flake, former head of the Barry Goldwater Institute, into outcasts because he goes after earmarks and earmarkers. Yeah, go ahead, GOP, keep talking the small government talk while being just somewhat less profligate about spending than the Democrats and keep trying to legislate morality. I’ll continue throwing my vote to the Libertarians…although one hopes they’ll one day run a candidate for president who isn’t a total loser.