TFP Column: My Guilty Past

(Contrary to logic and reason, I have decided to put new material up on this blog, but only in the form of the columns that I have done for the Toledo Free Press.  This is done for the benefit of those with time to waste, who likewise do not spend their time reading the website of this award winning weekly newspaper, and I will go back and add efforts that were published earlier this year.)

This particular effort was published on 5/05/2014.

I've been thinking about the recent resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich and what it means; not only as a user of this particular search engine, but as someone paying attention to the direction in which the political winds blow. Now for those who somehow missed the story, let's go over the highlights of the story.

Six years ago Mr. Eich, who co-founded Mozilla back in 1998, made a $1000 contribution in support of Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative that opposed the legalization of gay marriage in California. Prop. 8 passed by a 52% to 48% margin, but was later overturned in the court system. Since those rulings, gay marriage has resumed in California.

After many years with the company, Mr. Eich was recently named to the position of Chief Executive Office, a position which had been open for over a year. While news of his contribution made the news years ago, the story resurfaced after the promotion was announced, and a firestorm of controversy ensued on social media and within the tech community.

Some initially merely called for Eich's resignation, but soon others went further and called for a boycott of Mozilla. Mr. Eich issued a statement re-affirming his commitment to inclusiveness at the company. The Chair of the Mozilla Foundation, Mitchell Baker, later also issued a statement about the company's continuing commitment to inclusiveness and its support for marriage equality. The damage appeared to have been done however, and Eich resigned his position and left Mozilla on April 3^rd of this year; ten days after becoming CEO.

The Free Speech issue of course, is at the heart of this controversy, and it's one that can be appreciated from both sides. Mr. Eich is certainly free to exercise his speech rights in making political contributions. Customers considering use of Mozilla (which is provided free by the way, except for voluntary contributions) are likewise free to use or discard any product from any company for whatever reason they choose.

I can sympathize with Mr. Eich however, who while he apparently had a rather closed definition of what constitutes a marriage in 2008 (the same one the President had at the time), showed no other signs of discriminatory practices against LGBT employees in the workplace. I can likewise sympathize with anyone (in the LGBT community or otherwise), who finds Mr. Eich's opinions on marriage offensive and responds. I do get concerned however, when a single action, years in our past, can have such far-reaching impact on our present and future.

Now, as a Libertarian, I take a somewhat different view on the entire subject of marriage. My concern is not about the respective sexes of those being joined (or the number for that matter), but what business the government has in the process. The fact that one must obtain a license to marry from that government (and pay them for the privilege) is not only offensive, but seems ludicrous in this day and age. It's not as if government stands in as a feudal Lord whose permission must be sought before joining; nor is it a state affair in which inheritance of lands and title may be at stake.

Considering that for those of non-noble lineage, this ceremony was little more than a gathering during which the happy couple jumped over a broomstick together, today's rules and regulations seem almost grotesque. That the rite supposedly being protected from desecration can now not only be legally officiated at by a priest, minister, magistrate, or justice of the peace; but by any mayor, ship's captain or Elvis impersonator with a drive thru lane makes the demand for government certification seem farcical.

I bring all of this up of course, because of my own trepidation over exposure. No, I haven’t been asked to step into a position of greater authority recently, nor do I expect to be at any time soon. Nevertheless, I fear that some crack TFP investigative reporter might choose to 'out' the guilty secret from my own dark past.

No, it's not some contribution to a ballot initiative that would portray me as a homophobe, a racist, or a religious bigot in the last six years that I fear. Growing up in the rarefied political environs of Chicago however and influenced by a Catholic education under the tutelage of a rather dissident clergy during the sixties and early seventies; I'm ashamed to confess that when I was finally able to legally cast my ballot for the first time, I voted Democrat two elections in a row.

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.