Congress and the con

FWIW I agree with those who are opposed to a government bailout of the American automotive industry. Not that anyone really cares. Apparently the UAW pays its bills and Congress will deliver promised services.

I felt the same way about the housing and banking mess.

In all these messes the stones that set off the ripples that grew into these tsunamis were cast by Congress. As usual.

I won't bore you with a rant about this. You can do your own homework if this is of any interest to you. I will say that in the normal coarse of a con artist-sucker relationship the sucker usually, at the very least, gets an education and the confidence artist eventually gets caught. In our relationship with our government, however, we never learn, do we? We actually go back again and again, almost begging to be fleeced one more time.

I don't blame the bankers, the stock market, the so-called fat cats, or the mortgage companies all that much. People are often greedy and short-sighted. I blame the meddlesome, power drunk magical thinkers who set up the con; who create the conditions that make these situations almost inevitable and the suckers, us, who uncritically believe the headlines and the campaign slogans.

Rules of the game

I'm a strict constructionist, or whatever that's being called these days, in all matters. I think the constitution is just dandy as it stands. It has a mechanism for change I think is just right; too cumbersome for casual, fashionable change but easy enough to allow for amendment reflecting tectonic shifts in societal thinking. That's as it should be despite our current penchant for allowing Congress to ignore the rules. We allow it at our own peril but the rules are fine. People not so much.

I like religion, too. Folks choose to follow a religion and each has its rules. The difference is that, unlike government rules, the rules of a religion cannot be changed without first rejecting the premise of that religion. Therefore, if you claim to be a Christian you must believe in the teachings of Christ. Those teachings are set forth in the Bible. You might not agree with them all but therein lie the rules of the game. If you choose to cherry-pick among those rules you can say you tend toward Christianity but you're not a Christian. You may sort'a like baseball, but if you decide to customize the rules a little it becomes something else. Not liking the rules is fine but if you change them without authority you have another game, or religion, or country, or whatever, and you're on your own.

If you believe the rules of your faith were decided by a deity it behooves you to follow them. Subsequent amendments by a religious governing body may be ignored, I think, with some impunity if not in accordance with the original rules,. Anything you believe was set forth by the original author, however, can't be messed with. Your convenience is not an issue. It's not a tough call people. You can't be a Christian serial killer who thinks that's okay because he follows the other rules. But that one, well, it's hard because you have these urges and they're a bitch to resist.

Laws, rules, whatever, would be unnecessary if we were all inherently good, moral, and wise. Sadly, few of us are. The law, religious or secular, sets limits on acceptable behavior that may, at times, conflict with our sometimes piss-poor impulse control. Appealing to your church to amend the rules on homosexuality, abortion, contraception, termination of innocent life, etc. is silly if those rules are fundamental. Only the deity that made them can change them. Administrative change by some body of mortals really changes nothing, does it? Again, cherry-picking the rules puts you out of the game. Those rules define a “good” person. They're pretty liberal, but no deviation is allowed including those for petitioning for forgiveness.

Marriage vs civil union

I confess to some confusion regarding the issue of “gay rights” as it pertains to marriage. I love to quibble and this is an issue tailor-made for it if ever there was one. Marriage is the spiritual union of two people generally, though not necessarily, acknowledged by a state or religious authority as a type of contract. In the sense that a state sanctions that union it is, by definition, a civil union. A union of two people by an officer of the state is commonly called a civil ceremony. Whether the two then refer to their contract as a marriage or some other term is a personal matter.

For good or ill most people have a personal definition of the word marriage that is unlikely to change. No such issue pertains to the term civil union. An awful lot of couples that refer to their union as marriage are, in fact, united by contract and common species only. Few people have any serious issue with these contractual arrangements. These are referred to commonly as marriages in name only.

Why should not all civil unions be called just that in all official state documents? Strike the word marriage from the license, the contract, and the law. Let marriage be the province of the church subsequent to, if desired, the civil union. Thus would the baggage associated with the word marriage return to society at large and cease to be a legal matter. Frankly, marriage is more a state of mind and grace than one of law. The state already views it as merely a contractual arrangement. The hullabaloo is about a word that has no place in the legal code of a society that prides itself on non-interference with religion.

We seem, these days, to seek a complex legislative solution to every petty problem that comes up. It seldom occurs to us that often solutions may be found in legislative retreat. This issue is one that I think the state would be happy to hand off to the people. Simply define, for the purposes of the state, all marriages to be civil unions and the word “marriage” to have no legal weight. Churches may do as they believe proper with petitioners for the sacrament of “marriage” without recognition, interference, or guidance from the state. Little would change but the legal terminology. Let all states renounce control and recognition of marriage with “civil union” replacing the word “marriage” in prior law and all subsequent legislation pertaining to such relationships.

The government has plenty on its plate without having to legislate what people choose to name their sleeping arrangements.