Marriage and Government

In considering the present controversy over marriages between homosexuals, it is helpful to look at what marriage means to different people and in different contexts. To two people getting married it is a commitment (partially enforceable and partially not) to join their lives, income, and property as a family and usually a formal declaration of their love and sexual attraction for each other.  To religious authorities and believers (including believers getting married),  it is a sacred rite conveying on the couple the approval and demands of a god or gods in accordance with the doctrines and practices of the religion. To the government it is a contract similar to an incorporation recognized by those in government as legal and giving the couple certain specific benefits, penalties, and obligations under the law. 

Much of the difficulty and  rancor over the issue comes from confusing and conflating these things and their consequences. People can and do marry in the first sense irrespective of legal status, and religious authorities and believers are completely free to make and follow whatever rules  they like with regard to what they will recognize as divinely approved marriages and to condemn and refuse to accept anything else.  It is only in the last sense that  there should be a political controversy at all, and a fairly small one at that.

The issue should reduce to a dispute over whether homosexual couples should be able to execute the same sort of contracts with the government and get the same benefits and penalties with regard to taxation, estate laws, divorce, ownership of property, shared liabilities, and similar things as do heterosexual couples.  While it is not mainly a question of basic rights (no more than, say, renters being treated more harshly on income taxes than people with mortgages is),  it seems to me  that  they probably should, and that people who disapprove of homosexual behavior probably should not mind.

Many who disapprove of homosexuality on religious or ethical grounds object that such marriages would convey a sanction on behavior they believe to be immoral.  However, even in the context of their own beliefs, I think they are mistaken to do so. Given the general level of character and behavior of politicians and bureaucrats, it would be strange to look to them for moral sanction or guidance on anything or to worry about what they thought about anything except as required pragmatically.  

Another argument against governments' recognizing  marriages of homosexuals is that many of the benefits those in government allow married heterosexuals are in recognition of the benefits to society from having and raising children and should not be available to homosexual couples since  they do not produce children. That, though, could be fixed easily by making  those particular benefits contingent on a couple having children. 

However there is a reasonable basis for concern over governments’ recognizing homosexuals’ marriages. It is the fear that those in government will use the fact of that recognition to force private individuals, groups, or businesses to do things they do not want to do. This fear could and should be allayed by both officials and those advocating legal recognition. In addition to being the right thing to do, doing so should help the process of getting recognition move more rapidly.  Having the government treat marriages of homosexuals generally the same way it treats marriages of heterosexuals while forcing no one to agree with, support or participate in such events or extend private benefits because of them  would be an outcome both fair and respectful of the rights of all concerned.   

Charlie Hebdo

There are several things to think about concerning the recent bombings at Charlie Hebdo’s offices  in  Paris. It is important to make neither too much nor too little of it. It was not an act of war. It was a criminal act committed by a small number of people. The conflict with Muslim terrorists is not a world war and not an existential threat as many conservatives assert.  (I wonder if even they really mean it,  because they generally seem content with the way the administration of George W. Bush handled the problem. A real world war and existential threat would call for giving the enemy not the mild and measured war of Bush and Colin Powell, but at least a taste of Franklin Roosevelt’s war, which is something they are not advocating.)

However this crime does  illustrate again that many Muslims are fanatical savages who have no place in a civilized order, and that much of Islam remains a religion of violence and intolerance and a danger to the rest of the world. It also illustrates the hypocrisy and fatuousness of Obama and those in his administration who are talking about responding by having a conference on “extremists” , finding themselves unable even to identify their enemy by name, apparently feeling too insecure and politically correct to call a spade a spade or even a diminutive digging utensil.   

The correct operational response to these and other Muslim terrorists is to hunt them and their material backers down and kill them, ruthlessly and remorselessly.  Those of us not in the armed forces should support those who will have to do the tough, dangerous work of eliminating these people.  The correct symbolic response is to both advocate free speech and practice free speech by doing something offensive to the Muslim fanatics’ sensibilities. People should drag out and tell and post their grossest and most tasteless rag head jokes. Theatres should present revivals of Voltaire’s Mahomet.  The cartoons from Charlie Hebdo should be in every Sunday paper. Cable networks and broadcasters should run marathons of old movies about fighting and killing dangerous Muslim fanatics – the more politically incorrect, stereotyping,  and supportive of colonialism the better. CAIR and other front groups should be lampooned and insulted unmercifully. Campus speech codes protecting Islam from insults should be violated as brutally and sophomorically as possible. Enough is enough. A point should be made. People should have good, rude, offensive fun making it.