What's in a Marriage?

There seems to be a great deal of debate going on lately about not only what constitutes a marriage, but who has the right to one.  As someone who has been married twice, there are some who believe that I should be able to speak on this right of joining with a certain degree of expertise.  As someone who has likewise been divorced twice, there are an equal or greater number who believe that, having twice failed to keep one together, I have absolutely no right to voice an opinion.

That's the thing about "Just Blowing Smoke" however.  Since this is in fact my world and you're just living in it, I not only don't have to check with the readers of this site (both of them) for permission; I don't normally even seek the judgment of the DJBSS or even the SOS lexicographers before speaking out on a subject (and usually can't sober them up enough to do so even on the rare occasions when I want to).  

Speaking about belief in general, if not my suitability to speak about the subject in particular.  One of the chief arguments about this ceremonial joining is that the Christian religious belief determines that this should be the relationship between one man and one woman.  That may in fact be the case in the New Testament, but there's a different story being told in the Old Testament.  Abraham had more than one wife, at least according to Genesis 16:1 and 25:1, Ahab is asked to give his "best wives and children" up to an enemy in The First Book of Kings 20:1, David appears to have been married to Michal (Book of Samuel 18:27), Abigail (The First Book of Samuel 25:43) and Eglah (The Second Book of Samuel 3:5).  All of this of course, discounts the concubines and slaves that appear to being sharing the beds, if not marital status with major Biblical figures (except in Abraham's case, where Hagar was apparently both depending on when you look).  

But religious groups can choose what kind and whose marriages that want to sanction and whose they don't; as I discovered during my first attempt at the practice when the Catholic Church refused me for in turn refusing to take and pass their class before going forward (though looking back at my record, one cannot help but wonder whether I might have learned something useful from the education process).  One cannot also help but wonder however, which religion we should use to judge by.  Many of them after all have permitted polygamy of one form or another, and most have tacitly sanctioned the reproductive practices purportedly restricted to marriage, at least to those sitting on the throne.  One might go even further and ask why, at a time when so many in this country (including myself) are seeking to keep Sharia law from being used in any way to judge or condone behavior, why laws of Christian tradition or the Jewish law that precedes it should be a standard from which we judge.  (Oh I know the arguments that this is a 'Christian Nation', but disregard their logical absurdity since I normally hear them from the same people decrying Sharia Law practiced by nations in the Middle East.)

And as we thereby seek to prevent religion beliefs (which are often contradictory and rife with seemingly irreconcilable differences) from being the standard for marriage, we might also ask ourselves by what right the State thinks it has authority to decide such an issue.  A "Marriage License" issued by the government is of course required in order to any union to be considered legal.  Where in the Constitution (federal or state) should we look to find that particular empowerment?  In point of fact there is none.  Marriage ceremonies were for most of history, simple ceremonies conducted locally to acknowledge a romantic bond publicly; and could be as simple as the couple jumping over a broom.  Of course things got more complicated as noble families bound themselves to each other and joined lands through treaties of marriage.  Likewise having some form of documentation of the bond came in handy when divvying up the spoils of inheritance in a grand estate after such mergers.  In none of this however (with the exception of some of the nobles getting hitched) was it required to obtain the 'permission' of the state.  So the question remains, by what right or documented ceding of power does any level of government get to issue a license for marriage, as if you were registering the ownership of a business or a dog (questions which have likewise yet to be answered). 

 -------------------

You know, this probably hasn't been as clever and amusing as some of my more recent weekend efforts (which in turn are probably not as clever and amusing as I would have like to have made them).  But it is in fact the discussion itself that provides the normally required humor.  The truth of the matter is that the discussion of the subject by the President (especially in an election year), the Vice President (for whom the concept of speaking on any subject without putting his foot in his mouth up to the knee is usually his greatest concern), or the opposition party candidate running for the office (whose religion does in fact permit polygamy) is all but ludicrous.  At a period in this country's history when the national debt is on the verge of of destroying it, at a time when half the people in this country are complaining that they're not getting enough from a government being paid for by the half being demonized for making enough money to do so, at a time when the economy continues to swirl the bowl with a fairly distinctive flushing sound; the last thing we need to be talking about is who gets to get married

What's more, at a time when out-of-wedlock childbirth is unacceptably high and when "baby daddy" and 'baby momma" have become all but acceptable descriptions of former partners that were never married; this discussion is becoming largely irrelevant.  After all, the "Leave it to Beaver", "Father Knows Best", and even "I Love Lucy" marriages from our parents day are mostly gone (and more's the pity).  For those trying to save what was once defined as a 'Traditional Marriage', sorry but it's largely gone.  Like it or not, we live in an extended society today where children understand the concept of step parents, step grand parents, and people related to them who aren't actually related to the kids at all.  We speak calmly of ludicrous concepts like my 'nephew' or 'sister-in-law' by my first marriage as if they had any meaning.  Hell, according to our current Secretary of State at the time when she was formerly the First Lady, but not yet a former Senator (How's that for complicated?); "It Takes a Village" to raise a kid anyway. 

As for my own feelings on who should be allowed to get married, I'm afraid that regardless of my past experience on the subject, I will not say.  Since I've already expressed the opinion that both the Church and the State have no standing in the argument, how can I then claim to have one.  As for my own potential marriage plans, while some say that 'the third time's the charm', others argue that 'three strikes and you're out'; I find that I am wary, but at least occasionally curious on the subject.  Having lost half of my stuff in the first of those marital partings, and half of what's left in the second, I appear to be having difficulty in finding someone who's interested in at least half of what's left ... let alone living and putting up with a stogie-smoking Curmudgeon.  If I ever find someone however (and I do continue the search), I believe that we will have to have a serious discussion about 'what's in a marriage' before I'm convinced to once more take the plunge.

Update:

It was only this evening while indulging in the guilty pleasure of reading other blogs that I discovered a posting on this subject by mi Amigo, Roland Hansen.  We don't always agree politically, but it's an interesting take on the politicizing that this subject has recently gotten in the news. 

Hidden Taxes, Hidden Unions

Complaining about the amount of the taxes that we pay is perhaps the only real right not spelled out in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, though it could of course said to have been spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.  And while we all talk about Income Tax (at the national, state, and often municipal level), Social Security Tax, Property Tax, and Sales Tax; the list of ways in which government finds to tax us seems to go on forever.

Though many of us believe that this is the extent of that which we need complain about, there are many more hidden taxes that we also pay in our daily lives.  Rather than just list them however, let's take a bit of a literary license with a hypothetical situation of someone in 'pursuit of happiness':

Let's say for example that you want to start you own business on land that you already own (and are therefore already paying taxes on).  First of course, you'll have to pay to get a building permit issued in order to place a structure for your use on land that you own, paying a tax to the municipality for permission for the privilege of doing so.  Once construction is almost complete and regardless of the abilities, reputation, and even union affiliation (or lack of it) of the workers used; you will now need to obtain a Certificate of Occupation.  That certificate of course, will only be issued upon a city inspection for which a 'fee' (code word for tax) is required.  Having completed this process however, you might assume that you are done and can begin your actual pursuit, but you'd be wrong.  Still remaining is a Business License, yet another tax in fee form that you must pay in order to legally do business in a building that you now own, built on land that you own.

And heaven forbid if that business is one that serves food and liquor; as these require not only an additional Health Inspection and yet another fee, but additional permission and license to sell a legal beverage (alcohol) in the business you own on the property you own.  More paperwork and permission, and of course more fees for permission to do so.

Perhaps you'd like to leave a dog at this premises to guard your investment while you're not there.  All well and good my friend, but that pet / guard had better have a dog license (at what is no doubt a reasonable fee) or you'll have trouble with either the city or county, depending on which has their hand out.

Now perhaps before putting your nose to the grindstone and knowing that they'll be little leisure time in the days ahead if you're to make a go if it, you decide to take a vacation. You'd better watch out before clicking on that deal of an airfare.  In a recent Bloomberg report, travelers found that the $150 transatlantic deal they just got may prove to be $800 by the time the taxes and fees are added in.  In a specific trip mentioned on Delta from Atlanta to London Heathrow, the $338.40 base airfare had almost double that amount in taxes and fees added to it (another $599.20) before any bags could be packed.  And while the hidden nature of some of these fees and taxes are now no longer possible, the taxes and fees yet remain.

__________________

Taxes are not the only thing going on more or less out of sight though.  There are also Unions which, though not acknowledged by their members, restrict membership to drive up wages just as surely as if they were the UAW or SEIU.

Do you want to become a doctor?  Fine, but in order to do so you must first train at an accredited institution for such a purpose, then serve an apprenticeship (commonly known as residency) before getting your diploma and being allowed to hang out your shingle.  Why even the Hippocratic oath speaks to this restrictive principle involved, "Those things which are sacred, are to be imparted only to sacred persons; and it is not lawful to impart them to the profane until they have been initiated into the mysteries of the science."  (This certainly sounds like the basis of a closed shop to me.)

There may be differences between the AMA and the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers), but you'd be hard-pressed to discover them from the way they operate.  It should likewise be noted that such practices restrict membership and drive up the level of compensation, or at least they did until government bureaucracy took its place in the equation and mandated price controls through what it paid in fees by Medicare and Medicaid.


But doctors aren't alone in such secret membership.  One might just as easily point to lawyers and their State Bar Associations.  Study at an accredited institution as long as you like, but you can't become a practicing lawyer until you pass an exam and become a Journeyman (or as they put it, are "admitted to the Bar").  Even then, you are required to pay dues to the State Bar Association where you've been admitted, and get yourself tested and admitted in every other state in which you wish to practice.  Here too has restricted membership kept fees fairly stable (and high) and allowed those laboring in this covert trade union to maintain a relatively high rate of recompense.  

One can, without stretching the point too finely, include most Political Parties in this country in the mix.  Members do in fact pay dues, and by so doing do gain voting rights within their organization, even when the voting is in primary elections paid for not by the party, but by the taxpayer.  And while not every state holds to such restrictions, most favor closed shop elections for those running for public office.  If this were not so, why are Independent candidates, or those from other parties (like Libertarians) forced to operate under different petition rules and often kept from participating in the public debates for these public office.

It's hard enough dealing with the frustration caused by restrictive taxes and restrictive rules imposed by the partnership of government and unions on many parts of our day-to-day existence that we can clearly see in this country.  It's particularly confounding however, to find out how much of the money being taken and how many of the strings being pulled are being done through Hidden Taxes and Hidden Unions.


  

Puppy Prejudice

The news in the Toledo are has been full of appearances by the Lucas County Dog Warden, Tom Skeldon. It appears that Saturday is the last day for Lucas County residents to purchase the proper license for their dog in 2009. After that day, the fee for the license doubles from $25 to $50. Should a pet owner be cited after this for having a dog without a license, there is the potential for additional penalties of $25 and court fees of up to $75. Setting aside the government's right to regulate and license the owning of a pet (a rather large set aside in my opinion), I have to ask where the other licenses are.

Where is the license for turtles and frogs? Why is this only a license for dogs? Where is the license for minks and for parrots? Find me the rules for snakes, fish and ferrets? Show me the tag for a pot-belly pig, or abolish the law, I don't give a fig. Show me the license we need for a cat. Show me, oh show me, I'd love to see that. (Sorry, but I had an irresistible urge to channel Dr. Suess...)

This is nothing more or less than discrimination against dogs and their owners, and I am outraged! I would have thought that in this country of hope and change, in the politically correct world that compassionate people have now created for us, that such a thing would be impossible. Please join with me to fight this blatant prejudice against our canine companions and their human masters.