Gyroscope

A newsletter for those unmoved by spin.
No. 31, March 8, 2004

Subscribe

Change Address

Unsubscribe

Comment

So those who are opposed to allowing two homosexuals to make a public, binding commitment to each other are now calling their laws, amendments and bills by the title "Defense of Marriage." As many have noted this fails the logic test.

First, it's not clear how gays getting married threaten a heterosexual marriage. If anything, by seeking to join the idea of pairing off, being public about it, and dealing with the same child custody, property and inheritance rules that heterosexuals do, it would seem like gay marriage would reinforce the institution of marriage. Some in the homosexual movement do indeed distain permanent unions of two people, preferring more open and flexible sexual arrangements. Now that might threaten the commitment of heterosexuals to faithfulness by providing counter examples but I can't see how gays getting married threaten heterosexuals.

Secondly, homosexuals have lived together for decades and been pretty public about it for twenty years or so in the United States. Whether we legalize gay marriage will have no impact on the number of gays or the number living together or the amount of gay sex going on. Those who claim that sex should only take place in a relationship of mutual commitment should be hard pressed to explain why they want to insist that gay sex only take place outside of publicly committed relationships.

The answer of course, is that those opposed to gay marriage couldn't care less about the health of heterosexual marriage, they just dislike gays and want to drive them back underground. They're not bothered by gay sex, they are bothered by having to admit it exists. By causing homosexuals discomfort, expense and inducing more heartbreak and stress by preventing public recognition of their relationships, opponents hope to make it more difficult to be gay. Since they reject the moral validity of homosexuality that seems reasonable to them. But if they succeed it won't reduce the amount of gay sex by a bit.

Marriage in the United States is indeed threatened, and has been for some time. I admit I do not have a nice easy explanation for the total breakdown that took place over the past thirty years. "Permissiveness", "the pill", the evil 60's, the decline of religion, the open sexuality in entertainment medium are all cited as reasons, but they leave me unconvinced. Many marriages in the old days were horrible experiences for those who knew that the relationship was over and just had to hang on for appearances, so one can't say either that we are just worse now at picking partners. I tend to think society is less reinforcing of commitment, discipline and sacrifice in general than it used to be (unless it involves sports or making money), but why has that occurred? Good subject for thought.

But marriage is threatened by adultery more than by gays. Anyone up for a constitutional amendment to outlaw that?

"Last March, on the very day that U.S. forces entered Iraq, Fidel Castro launched a major crackdown on peaceful Cuban political dissidents." -- Theresa Bond, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2003, p. 118.

For all our huffing and puffing about Cuba, there is very little in mass media about the texture of its internal life. This was a major crackdown, and even opponents of Fidel couldn't get the attention of the U.S. media for this.

The Heritage Foundation, a leading right-wing think tank has come out strongly and vocally against the new Medicare Drug Benefit bill, predicting that many seniors will loose their coverage or have to pay large amounts for a minor benefit.

Pretty bad for Bush when even his friends sound like liberals when they attack him.

"... the information all points to a major rearmament program centering on a nuclear weapons revival, and particularly on a new nuclear submarine fleet." Paul Webster, in The Walrus, Nov/Dec 2003, p. 37.

The Walrus is an oddly named, but quite interesting news magazine out of Canada. The thrust of this particular article is that Russia has embarked on a significant rearmament program, which has gone largely unremarked in the West. Given the renewed expansionist foreign policy of Russia, this is some cause for concern. While we picture Russia as our new friend, and China as our next adversary, Russia's expanding muscle is not necessarily working to our best interests.

"The US economy failed to create any private sector jobs last month, dealing a further blow to hopes that the labour market was recovering." -- Christopher Swann, in the Financial Times, March 6, p. 1.

Much of the growth in the economy in the fourth quarter of 2003 was due to stocks going up and housing prices going up, not an increase in personal incomes. While there are more and more signs that corporate capital spending is coming back, jobs are not yet being created.