Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

I can’t believe I actually support something the ACLU does. In this case, I do.

Marriage. It is a religious, spiritual, cultural, and societal issue. Throughout history, marriages have been sanctified by an organized church, or blessed in one form or another by a village elder. Church marriages were reserved for the upper classes, although many others were officiated by clergy.

But I can’t think of a single sentence in our Constitution or its Amendments which gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage, or any other societal or cultural issue. In fact, this is one issue where I believe the church/state separation philosophy actually applies. I don’t know with any real certainty, but I seriously doubt that any state constitution has provisions for regulation of marriage, either.

Government got into the marriage business when politicians saw another way to raise revenue–licenses. Of course, there was a pretext of “for the public good” by requiring blood tests. (Are those still done?) Logically, why do I need the government’s approval to get married?

Today there are far more issues involved. And those issues are the prime reason for the ACLU to press this case. Marriage grants certain privileges, most due to givernment edict. What the ACLU is supporting is same-sex marriage partners receiving privileges (not rights) that heterosexual partners have. My dog in this fight is exactly the opposite result the ACLU wants. I want to see the government out of the marriage business in every way. Privileges must be based on individuals. Companies should not be required to offer equal privileges. They need to have consistent policies, but the government has no place dictating what they recognize. If a gay couple can get recognition of their union by some group, good for them. I feel the same about polygamy, which is the stated focus of this suit.

I am not optimistic, though. If the ACLU is successful in this suit, it will have exactly the opposite effect I want to see.

This is the danger of allowing our judiciary to legislate. I would only support a Marrigae Amendment to the Constitution if it stated the government had to stay out of the marriage business. The issue is already resolved by the Constitution–it doesn’t give the government any authority in this matter. Therefore, the Feds must stay out of it. If a state wants to make a law regarding marriage, and their constitution allows it, the matter is settled.

Don’t count on it.

Hoorah! Today the talk of the news shows is not only the spectacle in New Hampshire, but something even more important: Academy Award nominations.

For many people in this country it is a momentous event. Not for me. It doesn’t matter to me any more than the award of “Top Salesman for 2003” at any company you could name. As one of the lists of names was recited, I realized how little I know or care. Most of the names didn’t even ring a bell.

My daughter works in the TV and film business in California. I’m sure it is of interest to her. One of my sons always gets together with friends to watch the awards show. I hear conversations about “Can you believe so-and-so got the ‘Best Whatever’?” at work.

What makes all of this ridiculous is that it matters only to people in the industry. Yet those folks all believe it should matter to everyone, because they are stars. My “Company Grade Officer of the Year” award a few years ago was against much broader and stiffer competition. And it addressed what I did for an entire year, not just the results of a couple of months worth of effort. I don’t remember whether Billy Crystal was the emcee or not!

I remember all the talk when Halle Berry won her Oscar. She was the first “female African-American” to win one. The talk was of racism. Everyone in Hollywood was supportive of her and her struggle to make it in the industry. Racism in this country had to be the reason. But nobody made the most important point about it: To find the racism they were talking about, all they had to do was look at the attendees.

The average American doesn’t vote on the Oscars. It is an industry award. The industry must be racist. The very people who, almost daily, chide the rest of us about diversity.

The American public has no problem with black actors and actresses. We vote by buying tickets. Ever heard of Denzell Washington? Sidney Portier? Bill Cosby? James Earl Jones? Halle Berry?

These same hypocrites are the ones who will berate anyone who doesn’t support their pet concerns. I listen to none of them. After all, most of them are operating with a high school education and life experiences in a world of make-believe.

John Stossel was on O’Reilly last night. I haven’t watched Bill in some time–he’s become another Geraldo–but I wanted to hear what Stossel had to say. He didn’t get to say too much, typically, because O’Reilly gave him only a short session and spent a lot of time talking about how he provided a review for the dust jacket on John’s book.

This morning in my daily news read I found the above article on WorldNetDaily. I was very interested. Last night I decided John’s book is one I need to read. The gist of the article, linked as a “get an autographed copy” ad, is more about how things changed for John once he began covering government rather than corporations in his consumer protection pieces. It is worth a read.

So, too, is the textual context of his recent TV show on ABC which busted a few major myths. All this combined interested me in searching for more on Stossel. Apparently, some major players are on his butt. Just makes me even more interested in what he has to say!