Is it Time to Remove the Legal Rights of Marriage?

Have we been walking down the wrong trail as we chart the future of marriage and the law?

With all of the furor over Prop 8 in California, it seems that the civil rights issue most likely to find its way to the Supreme Court in the near future is the issue of gay marriage. If this is the case, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which a Supreme Court - no matter what their ideological makeup - does not come down on the side of marriage rights for citizens who happen to be gay.

An affirmation of the rights of gay people to marry by the US Supreme Court will not mean the end of this issue. Quite the opposite. The country will be bitterly divided over such a decision. More divided than after Brown v. Board of Education. Why? Because Brown was a decision that overturned a practice contrary to the tenants of our national conscience and the secular constitution that governs us. Like it or not, American's knew in their hearts that the Warren Court was right. I'm not convinced that the national conscience is yet attuned to the injustice of denying gay citizens the right to be married.

Ironically, the path beyond Prop 8 is made murkier by virtue of the fact that we have as a nation already - long ago - made the legal misstep of codifying a religious tradition - vesting it with legal rights. Granted, there is a long tradition of codifying the religious institution of marriage in the US and in other nations and until gay people began looking for this specific piece of the American dream, it seemed to be a relatively tolerant tradition with people of all religious persuasions gaining acceptance into the fold. 

But what if it were otherwise? What if the legal precedent had always been some kind of civil union contract and the change being sought was to adopt a set of religious codes as law? Would Americans accept this? Not likely. In fact, I'd go so far as to speculate that such a proposal would be dead on arrival in the halls of Congress, with the fundamentalist sectors of every religion and denomination fighting for the adoption of their prescriptions - and unwilling to accept the outcome on any other terms - and the rest of America simply opposed to it on principal.

Its time for us to consider the idea of making civil unions the law for everyone.  

Make no mistake about it. "De-codifying" marriage, making it only a religious institution, with no legal authority will not eliminate the controversy. But it will place that controversy squarely where it belongs - in our homes and churches and not in our courts. Each church will determine what the "rights" and privileges of marriage will mean for those married in their churches and each family will decide what church(es) speak to their beliefs and to whom they should look for spiritual guidance. Likewise no religious order may infringe upon the rights of other orders to define marriage in their own terms.

Stripped of its legal authority, marriage will instead become a more deeply personal and religious decision for each couple - straight or gay. Entered into not because it was required by the laws of men and women, but because it carried the imprimatur of a higher moral authority.

A Tower of Eagles

Obama isn't building a "Team of Rivals". He's creating a "Tower of Eagles".

Much has been made lately of the comparison between the premise of Doris Kearnes Goodwin's best-selling book about Abraham Lincoln and the actions of President-Elect Barack Obama as he builds his cabinet. 

I've listened to the other pundits as they postulate that consideration of Hillary Clinton or some other individual constitutes evidence that Barack Obama is building a "Team of Rivals". Many of them suggesting that there is great danger in such an approach.

Serendipitously, at the same time, our blog, Unified Visions, is running a humorous contest asking people to create collective nouns for entities like Sarah Palin supporters and Keith Olbermann fanatics. For those who don't know, a collective noun - also known as a "Term of Venery" - is a term that defines a grouping of things: a gaggle of geese, a murder of crows, etc. In researching this contest I came upon the term for a group of eagles (there are several)and what I think is a far more apt descriptor for the efforts of our President-elect; A "Tower of Eagles".  

I've been uncomfortable with the Team of Rivals concept because it seemed incongruent with the tenor of the Obama campaign and the promise of his presidency which is optimistic and exceedingly aware of the power of words. Further to this point, if I were Hillary Clinton or even a Hillary supporter, I would take umbrage at being referred to as a rival after hundreds of campaign appearances on behalf of Barack Obama. 

Finally, while historically interesting, the notion of a team of rivals is - for the purposes of building a cabinet real-time-now is oxymoronic. Suggesting an approach that is more Machiavellian than merit-based. 

Barack Obama is not building a Team of Rivals, he's building a Tower of Eagles. Setting aside differences, looking beyond politics as usual, to build a cabinet and a team composed of the best and the brightest*.   

Of course there will be some folks from the Clinton administration - after all we had eight years of peace and prosperity, a budget surplus and a diminishing national debt and middle income folks saw their incomes rise by $7,000 a year on average. I'd be a lot more worried about our new President if he DIDN'T have any Clinton folks on board. Let's not forget that the first months of the Bush Presidency were dedicated to trashing all things Clinton and it was all downhill from there.  

Now I'm not silly enough to believe that I can change the lexicons of the tsunami of folks who have adopted the Team of Rivals as the de rigueur lens through which they view the workings of the Obama transition. I am even willing to admit that I was using the term myself before it became the catch phrase of the zeitgeist. But like a piece of ill-fitting clothing the more I used it, the less comfortable it felt. At best, I'm going to continue hoping that those who cling to using the term will at least acknowledge that it fails to fully capture the essence of what is happening and that - in their hearts - Americans will know that what Barack Obama wants ultimately is not a team of rivals who keep their knives hidden, but a tower of eagles with their talons entwined lifting us, together, toward a brighter future.

Wayne King is a recovering politician and publisher. He thinks and speaks from his spot on the porch in Rumney, NH where he proudly flies both the American and Iroquois flags; he blogs from his space in the Blogosphere, Unified Visions:  www.UnifiedVisions.Blogspot.com where he advocates for a post-partisan approach to governing.

 

A Rascal of Boys

The tradition of using collective nouns that are specific to certain kinds of animals is at least 300 years old. More formally known as "terms of venery" these collective nouns were actually taught to the children of nobles and the ruling class as a means of distinguishing themselves from the commoners.

Sometimes the term used will apply to a group only in a certain context. A group of geese on the ground are referred to as a "gaggle" while, in flight, it is a "skein". Ironically, a group of Baboons is referred to as a "congress".

Some examples:

A mimsy of birds
A rascal of boys
A kaleidoscope of butterflies
A stumble of drunks

The coining of such terms is also a popular "parlor" or car game. So we're announcing a contest
today to come up with one or more terms for the following across three different websites. The prize for each is a signed Mindscape image from our Mindscape photo blog, valued at $295.

Please suggest a term for each or any of the following:

1. A gathering of [name of any public figure]____________ supporters.
2. A friendly gathering of "talking heads" on "Hardball with Chris Matthews"
3. A screaming, blathering group of disagreeing "talking heads" on "Hardball with Chris Matthews"
4. A group of expatriot Obama supporters
5. A gathering of Sarah Palin supporters
6. A group of Florida voters
7. A group of Minnesota voters
8. A group of Bill O'Reilly viewers forced to watch Keith Olbermann
9. A group of Keith Olbermann viewers forced to watch Bill O'Reilly
10. Add your own group!

Submissions may be by email or as a comment added to this or any related post. Winners will be announced February 14, 2008.

Birdhouse Beachfront

While visiting one of the best bead shops in America, Gemstar Gemstones in Enfield NH, I had the opportunity to photograph this group of birdhouses that resembled a bunch of colorful houses on a beachfront. Thus was born Birdhouse Beachfront!

Order this image

Curious about this? Visit Wayne King's "Mindscapes" photoblog here.

A Connecticut Checkmate

I raised some ire among a few folks yesterday with my suggestion that Obama should demonstrate his magnanimity by welcoming Lieberman back into the fold. By 8pm this evening news had broken that Obama himself had let it be known to Harry Reid that Lieberman should be allowed to caucus with Democrats.

Having taken my stand and then having it reaffirmed by Obama, I would hasten to say that this does not mean that Lieberman should be welcomed back without having to accept some responsibility for the policy positions that he took during the campaign which are inconsistent with the visions of the new President. Lieberman has plenty of skills but on national security issues he has proven himself unworthy of the leadership roles that he previously held. Just as he should be welcomed back because we are better than those who would shun him. He should not be given a leadership position on national security because we are better than the vision that Senator Lieberman expounded in his support of the McCain ticket.

It is a matter of both accepting responsibility for his actions and acknowledging that his vision is inconsistent with that of our President-Elect.

But would Lieberman hold out for his old chairmanships to spite the new President irrespective of Obama's olive branch? Perhaps. That's why I would urge President Obama to offer a second olive branch to another Connecticut resident. Former Representative Christopher Shays. Representative Shays is a decent man who is widely respected as a moderate republican. The first Republican to break with the shameful ethical practices of the disgraced Tom Delay, Shays was also the first Republican to call for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Shays would be an ideal member of Obama's governing coalition in any one of a dozen possible positions - including national security. He would also, conveniently, be the ideal counterweight to Lieberman as the Republican most likely to be able to beat Lieberman out of his Senate seat. By offering Shays a place in the Obama administration, President Obama gets a quality person with an independent spirit and creates added incentive for Lieberman to do the right thing.

Leading with Lieberman

OK, let me start by saying I’m no fan of Joe Lieberman. In fact, I think that Saturday Night Live missed a great opportunity to portray him as Elmer Fudd during this, their most auspicious political season. But the recent political ranting and raving about punishing Joe Lieberman for endorsing McCain seems to me to present an ideal opportunity for President-Elect Barack Obama to demonstrate the power of forgiveness and unity, while at the same time strengthening the hand of Democrats in the Senate.

 

Let’s face it, while Lieberman may have jumped ship on the Democratic party from the perspective of hard core members of the party and “leadership” types. He only did what Barack Obama asked other Americans to do – to place party second to their loyalties to the country. So he came down on the wrong side of the fence but on the right side of the argument.

Say what you will about Lieberman, he’s certainly not a coward. The choice he made in endorsing John McCain could not have been an easy one for him. He isn’t so naïve as to believe that the mere act of standing before Republicans at the convention was going to ingratiate himself with most of them. After all, at his core Joe Liebermans principles are Democrat principles. The base of the Republican Party – at least as represented by the 28% who continue to support President Bush through thick and thin, was never going to accept Joe Lieberman, and many of the folks that would have accepted him jumped the other way in this election. Whether his decision was based on a powerful friendship or a misguided belief that Israel’s future would be more secure under a McCain Presidency, or some other factor that we will likely never know, his decision to stick with John McCain was an act of political courage with almost no upside.

Joe Lieberman is a complicated fellow.  But in his complexity and contradictions can be found a model of the complexities and contradictions swirling through many of the issues that we face as a country. Building a post-partisan coalition will be a tall order to begin with, leading with Lieberman would send a powerful message that Obama intends to make it happen.

Wayne King is a former State Senator and publisher. He Blogs from  his spot in the Blogosphere, Unified Visions www.UnifiedVisions.Blogger.com

Order Solar Products Directly from the Web

Hanging Out with Project Laundry List

Changing the World Through Clotheslines – One Household at a Time

Alex Lee is on a mission. A mission to restore the clothesline and to save the planet. Project Laundry List uses words, images, and advocacy to educate people about how simple lifestyle modifications, including air-drying one’s clothes, reduce our dependence on environmentally and culturally costly energy sources.
www.laundrylist.org
Project Laundry List Blog