For the most part, I don’t let the politics of my entertainers get in the way of my enjoyment. The fact that Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, and Gopher from the Love Boat are right wingers doesn’t get in the way of me enjoying their stuff. (Frequently the quality of their stuff gets in the way of me enjoying their stuff, but that’s another story.)
Via The Editors, Orson Scott Card, an author whose books I have enjoyed, has sprinted past Dennis Miller in the too-loony-to-enjoy-anymore sweepstakes. With Miller, it hasn’t been that his politics are so utterly beyond the pale, it’s that his politics are so entwined with his entertainment product. With Card, primarily a science-fiction writer, that is not so much the case. However, this little pro-treason outburst is jaw-dropping:
How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
Card is a Mormon, and that might be what makes me think of this. But his rant reminds me quite a bit of some of the pro-polygamy rants I’ve seen from fundamentalist Mormons who proclaim that they’ll see the Godless United States burn before abandoning the Sacred Principle of “plural marriage.”
In any event, as divorced from politics as they may be, I suspect I won’t be able to enjoy Card’s stories anymore without thinking about his willingness to foresake the United States Constitution before seeing a gay couple happily married, by god.
Marriage isn’t a biological imperative. Traditionally, it has been a social imperative. The distinction is quite important.
You know, there was a reason in the middle ages that they made actors and such sleep outside the walls of the city…
Ahh, the good old days!
“…and such”? lol
Holy crapola is about the only response to that…
I agree, the rant you posted was extreme and supports treason.
However, this clip shows a very level-headed view:
He goes on to address issues that degrade the image of marriage far more than same-sex marriage. That is an important point lost on many that fight so hard against same-sex unions and don’t expend near enough energy on lowering divorce.
I still claim that there should be a “Holy Marriage” pre-nuptial agreement that churches should require before they perform a marriage in their church. It should award full custody and ALL assets to the person who is a victim of a cheating or abusive spouse. If someone files for divorce because they just don’t want to be married, then they forfeit everything.
There is NOTHING that prevents churches from doing this, and this would go a long, long way to making marriage special again. Instead, we have rants about same-sex marriage.
Interesting post…
Observations:
There are far more “left-wingers” in entertainment– and, in seems to me, far more stupidity and hypocrisy within their wingedness. For me as well, there are levels of stupidity and hypocrisy that make it more (or prohibitively) painful for me to watch them.
Dennis Miller is “too loony” for you to enjoy? I’m really surprised to hear that– on a number of levels.
I concur with you that marriage is social (by the nature of things), but it obviously has vital biological roots.
Is Card threatening to go traitorous? More likely, he’s taking poetic license with some hyperbole.
To the larger issue: I concur with Card that marriage has only one definition. To paraphrase Chesterton, the term “same-sex marriage” is like describing a short-necked purple giraffe without a tail.
If this is (really) about extending various sorts of equal/equivalent rights, why not allow same-sex couples to have a legal arrangement with a name that does not require torturing a definition– say, “civil unions”? Is the cost to others and the language really worth that particular means to the democratically-agreeable ends?
Well Eric, it’s my opinion that anti-gay marriage hyperbole has driven advocates into the “I HAVE TO HAVE IT NOW, MOMMY!” mode.
If you keep telling someone that they can’t have something, then too often it becomes a fixation as to what that person must have at all costs.
Civil unions are no longer viewed as equivalent – by either side. Hence, I doubt it will ever get any serious attention again.
Look, while I’d love to have a partner with whom I am fighting for this right to marriage — I realize that there are more pressing demands for the GLBT community. Like the fact that you can still be fired for being gay. You can be denied housing or an education or even services on the basis of your orientation. Until those injustices are removed, I doubt that marriage will be a serious option in Indiana, even IF such a bill were passed.
By the way, I guess that “equal protection” clause in the US and Indiana Constitutions should be reworded to say “except if you’re gay”.
I think it’s historically inaccurate to claim that “marriage” is and always has been one man, one woman in all times and places. It’s a social construct, not a universal verity.
But, if government wants to disentangle itself from religion in this respect, I have no particular objections. It would probably make some sense for government to get out of the “marriage” business altogether and offer the bundle of rights and duties having to do with families under the name “civil union.” That bundle of rights and duties would be offered to gay couples and heterosexual couples on an equal basis. Religious institutions could follow the dictates of their faith and offer whatever sorts of ceremonies they wanted to whomever they wanted. However, those ceremonies would have no civil legal consequence.
As for the notion that Orson Scott Card “didn’t really mean it” when he suggested he’d destroy the government and the Constitution if the judiciary didn’t see things his way, I can’t crawl inside his head to know whether his tantrum was heart felt or not. Whatever his intent, it distracts from and devalues any legitimate points he may have had.
And, on the subject of Dennis Miller; all I can say is that he is a special case for me. Pre 9/11, he was one of my favorite comics. However, his comedy and his politics are entwined enough that I can’t enjoy one in spite of the other. It seemed to me that the terrorist attacks unmanned him enough that he went running for a political daddy-figure. But, that’s just me practicing psychology based on his television appearances which, of course, is as ridiculous as Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo from a video tape.
I agree with Varangianguard on the impact of the position taken on this by many opponents of “same-sex marriage”. At the end of the day, I think that was an unwise, short-sighted strategy. (One can say the same thing about the anti-contraception movement leading to Roe v. Wade, but that’s a different post.)
Hoosier1st makes an interesting related point on the other side of the debate. Bottom line: Like the evolution/Evolution debate (among others), the extremes have the largest sway in the debate and have driven the debate in unhealthy ways.
To Doug…
I didn’t say “one man, one woman” (although I understand that this language is commonly used). Polygyny is the obvious counter-example.
I would love for “govt to get out of the marriage business altogether”. And in the context of this debate, I would not be opposed to the govt deciding “to offer the bundle of rights and duties having to do with families under the name ‘civil union’.â€
Thanks for a little of the psychology of your reaction to Dennis Miller! ;-) I don’t agree with him on Iraq, but he holds a common position– and one that is not unreasonable on the surface. (And again, “extreme” opponents of our activities Iraq have made this debate more difficult.) Beyond that, he seems eminently reasonable overall. So, I just attribute that to a common blind spot. Among “conservative” talk show hosts, he’s tied with Prager as my favorites– and with the humor, he’s easily #1 out of that very mixed bag.
As a student of literature, I’ve personally found that artistic value degrades as political or advocacy dominates the text. For instance, Edmund Spenser, a brilliant poet, but his anti-Catholic pro-Tudor opinions push me against his writing. Same with Milton, great stuff, but his politics can prejudice readers, I think.
Of course my contradiction is my love for Kurt Vonnegut, but he seemed less concerned with parties and movements and more interested in hypocrisy.
Dennis Miller is still funny, btw. I think a lot of his right-wing commentary is a ploy for cash.
“It would probably make some sense for government to get out of the “marriage†business altogether and offer the bundle of rights and duties having to do with families under the name “civil union.†That bundle of rights and duties would be offered to gay couples and heterosexual couples on an equal basis. Religious institutions could follow the dictates of their faith and offer whatever sorts of ceremonies they wanted to whomever they wanted. However, those ceremonies would have no civil legal consequence.”
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT GAY PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR. Nothing more, nothing less. I have never heard anything else, except from people who oppose gay unions and are churning out propaganda. Maybe there are gay people demanding that, but I sure haven’t heard it.
I honestly do not give a flying crap what you call it — civil union, marriage, billy joe jim bob. The terms mean NOTHING.
The legal description is EVERYTHING. The thousand or so rights that you get by purchasing a marriage license — that is what we want.
To set up a legal entity that emulates that set of rights currently costs 5, 10, 20 thousand dollars depending on a gay couple’s assets and whether or not they have children whose raising and future need to be protected in the package, and even then there are protections we cannot achieve through trusts and legal constructs.
All we want is the same legal rights. You can keep your religious ceremonies. I can (and did) get married in my own church, within my own neighborhood, amongst my own friends and family and according to my employer’s conditions. As far as all those folks are concerned, I’m hitched. It’s only that piece of paper from the government I’m missing.
Let me correct that – I have a legal piece of paper – from Canada. That paper is recognized in Canada, the EU, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Strangely enough, because of that, I’m considered “married” according to some departments of my international corporate employer, and “domestically partnered” by other parts. I can’t remember which one is which – apparently payroll, insurance and human resources, depending on where they’re headquartered, use different terms. Doesn’t make any policy difference, but it’s rather funny.
I think all entertainment, and really all of the arts, inherently has a political message at some level. Sometimes it is ‘in your face’, sometimes it is subtle. I prefer love, compassion, empowerment, truth and beauty to exploitation, denigration, violence and hatred. Is it a coincidence the artists I like best are generally of a liberal bent? Maybe…
“Let’s all get naked and lay in a pile” part deaux:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jan/22/defense-for-canada-polygamists-cites-gay-marriage/
Lying in a pile naked ( promiscuity) is much more likely of unmarried,unattached people than any 2 people in a binding legal arrangement they both agreed to,whether 2 men,2 women,one of each.. It’s common sense that binding legal relationships stabilize society and make for an overall more responsible,committed society.
Mixing polygamy and gay marriage is to confuse both issues.
Tell that to the Canadians, not me. And if your a gambler at all, put money on this comparison coming to a courtroom near you eventually. It’s inevitable.
What are the social arguments against polygamy, esp. in light of “civil unions”? Why would “society” be opposed to its legality? From the State’s perspective, I don’t see the (significant) difference.
@ Jason: I don’t see how a church could have any say in custody arrangements or division of assets in the event of a divorce.
Not that you advocated this, but I’m not sure that we want to go back to the days when people had to jump through all sorts of hoops to prove “fault” in order to get a divorce.
It’s easier to argue for gay marriage as a civil right on constitutional grounds than it is to argue for polygamy on religious grounds.Wife beating could be legalized if we look to only Scripture.Not that the Bible advocates that,but some intrepretions infer that. And the more conservative one is religiously,(imo)the less one recognizes that anything is even subject to interpretation,and these are the ones who want laws passed on religious grounds ( again, imo)
But I don’t post with any expert knowledge of law or legal matters.
@ Pila: I’m not saying the church should have the legal say in that, but they can require a pre-nup that spells that out. The pre-nup would be the legal device to require that possessions and custody go to the one at fault. The church would just be making sure the pre-nup met their requirements before performing the service.
The point is, the church should be opposed to no-fault divorce. It goes against their idea of marriage. The fact that they don’t require this now does more damage to marriage than same-sex unions
Now, if someone doesn’t like the idea of entering into such a contract where there are serious penalties for not taking their marriage seriously, then they can go get a civil union or find a church without those requirements. However, I as a future spouse would not think too highly of a mate that isn’t willing to “bet the farm” on our marriage.
@eric: I think it is a fairness issue. Giving legal protections and tax breaks to a single mate is fair. However, if I wanted to get crafty, I could “marry” a bunch of other people that I want to send money to on my death and make some loopholes.
Some people wouldn’t do that because they take marriage seriously, but then they would be penalized for not gaming the system like those that would do it for the tax break. A single mate is far more equal and fair.
@Lou: It is difficult to make the argument, biblically and practically, that Christians ought to devote resources to fighting against polygamy.
To Jason’s point, it is far easier to make an argument for Christian activism against “no-fault” divorce, at least when children are involved.
@Jason: I don’t understand the tax advantages you’re trying to describe. If I want to give money to people, I can do so already.
How about instead of marriage, we have people incorporate instead?
That way you could set up whatever binding agreement seems best to you and the other members of your corporation.
And Doug, just think of all the work this would make for lawyers!
@Jason: The church would still be having a say in legal matters it ought to leave alone. I’m not sure how that sort of thing could be enforced. I’m pretty sure that many Christian denominations are opposed to no-fault divorce. Divorce is legal, and how it is obtained and defined is determined by the state, not the church, however.
Even if a church could require that anyone getting married within its walls or by its pastors or priests adhere to some church sanctioned pre-nup, you’d better believe that the person seeking the divorce would challenge the legality of said prenup, custody arrangements, etc.
Also, you don’t have to marry someone to give them money upon your death. Get joint assets, make a will, etc.
@ Eric Shansberg. Yes, I agree that gay marriage vs.polygamy is a false comparison,and isn’t that the greater point? It’s a comparison that those against gay marriage force us to look at as equal,or an opening for polygamists to cry discimination.The bottom line is that all individual rights are civil and constitutionality is the only valid test,imo.
Lou sez “The bottom line is that all individual rights are civil and constitutionality is the only valid test,imo.”
Which is precisely why eventually, in this great land you’ll be able to marry 6 women, or three sheep, or a softball team.
Tim Zank: Keeping with the humorous picture you drew above in your post,let’s imagine a divorce after one of these marriages goes bad. The divorce court would be a mess and have to scooped out afterwards,and the spectators would leave bleating.
You got it Lou!
Dim, I know you don’t get this point and, being so soft-headed, you never will, but allowing gay people to marry the ones they love means nothing else. I know you can’t comprehend this in your little cloud of hatred and bigotry, but it doesn’t take anything fromy ou, and it doesn’t sufddenly anyone can marry anyone – for example, your stupid ltitle statement above includes the old hatemonger saw about allowing people to marry animals.
Animals can’t sign contracts, Dim. Nor can children. So you can stop trying to push those points. And as for polygamy, your heroes from the Great Book of Godly Hate were polygamists, and besides, there are places where it’s legal as long as – get this – all the parties are consenting adults. I know you forget that last part exists in your bigoted little furies, but all your self-righteous indignation doesn’t change facts.
So why don’t you do us all a favor, and stop talking about things you don’t understand?
Blue Fielder? Not real well versed in the many aspects of humor, are ya?
From now on, when I make a joke, I’ll preface it for you Damian.
Tim, considering I’ve seen you argue that as an actual point, I’m not inclined to see it as humor.
A man marrying his dog or a few sheep is mostly humorous,but throwing people on pyres for moral suspicions isn’t.Judging from history,I would guess the latter possibility is still more likely than the former.It’s a simple question of constitutional due process vs
pure moral judgment.
Where gay marriage issue fits in is best discussed in this context.
BTW, on the inheritance thing.. let’s make this comparison:
If two men committed to one another, accumulate wealth, adopt or have children, buy a house and improve it together, making a family — and then one dies — the second is automatically considered a Class C inheritor and may only take the first $100 without penalty, and afterwards will pay from 10-50% of the value of the co-owned property –needed to protect and provide for his children. He will not receive death benefits automatically and even if he did, would still be taxed heavily on these. He cannot continue on the Medicaid/ Social Security of the dead “spouse”.. etc.
Change one of these to a woman and she will receive all of this, as well as the support and consolation of the greater society.
Think of that today.