Get government out of it

I've recently seen several people say things along the lines of "government should get its hands off of marriage" and "government has no business saying who can or can't get married".  It's an interesting idea.

The law defines marriage, assigns conditions on who can get married and under what circumstances, licenses marriages, defines who can administer the oaths and witness the signing of the license, and has processes for the dissolution of the marriage.  It also provides legal acknowledgement of the marriage, enforces some of its obligations, and provides certain privileges (tax and otherwise).  The law is, of course, written by the various legislative bodies, enacted by the various executive office holders, and interpreted by the courts.

So when someone wants the government to get its fingers out of marriage, what would that mean?  Can the government license marriage without defining it?  Well, no, not really - how would you know what had been licensed?  How about without regulating it?  Are there any examples of anything that's licensed but not regulated?  None I can think of.

Assume that the government chose to no longer define, regulate, or license marriage.  Marriages would become a matter of personal contract.  While there might be boilerplate that's common to many such contracts, the specifics would be infinitely variable.  Weddings would be a matter for lawyers, divorce would be a matter of contract law.   Woe to the aggrieved spouse without a signed, witnessed copy of the marriage contract (as amended) with all pertaining codicils.

How about those legal privileges?  They are arbitrary, based on the expected definition of marriage.  If any arrangement can be called marriage, would the people (who are the ultimate authority behind the government, after all) be willing to give special consideration to, well, anyone who says they're married?

You lie down with dogs

Did you ever notice that there are people out there who will try to convince you (and the world) that you believe in things you just don't believe in?  It's one thing when that person is not a member of your group and is doing it out of ignorance or malice, but...

What about when it's someone who is, at least nominally, a member of your group?

There are two major categories of people in this category:

• Overt - people who say that you, as a member of a common group, must believe in x or behave in y way.
• Implied - people associated with your group who, by their actions, somehow reflect on the motives, actions, and beliefs of the entire group.

Can you reasonably expect that everyone will understand that these people do not represent your views?  Sadly, no - unless you loudly and publicly reject these people as your representatives.  This burden especially falls on those in minority groups within the society.  Yes, it may seem unfair.  Yes, members of the majority may have an easier time of it because there are more examples of people who don't agree.

But it's important that when someone, by his/her/its speech or actions, claims that you believe something you don't it's time to speak out.  I'll start.

Pat Robertson is nominally a Christian minister and claims to understand what God says and to know how other Christians should act.  He's made statements to the effect that various disasters were caused by America's choice to not persecute homosexual people.  Pat Robertson does not speak for me nor, I hope, for God.

In the recent "tea party" tax protests there were people with signs equating President Obama, his policies, and his actions with Adolph Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust.  I don't know that I agree with any of the protestors views, but just in case - these guys are jerks and they don't speak for me.

Next?

Pirates II

The US Navy has captured a real live pirate, though there is some concern that he may be below the legal limit (do they have to throw him back?).  There is much talk of bringing him to trial, and some people see an issue here.

Fortunately, the issue is not jurisdiction.  Piracy is specifically addressed in the Constitution, and pretty much any country has jurisdiction to prosecute acts of piracy on the high seas under international law (as I understand it).

No, the issue is "what do we do when he gets out of jail."  Somalia is, after all, practically without a government.  Once the pirate has completed his sentence, the US can't possibly repatriate him without someone to hand him back to.

That strikes me as odd thinking, because:

1. If the pirate had gotten away, or if the navy had let him go, he would have gone to the vary place that has no government to receive him.  It's not like he doesn't want to go there, nor that he has a well reasoned fear of persecution.
2. If the prosecution does its job properly, we won't have to worry about this for a very, very, very long time - if, indeed, ever.  Who knows, perhaps Somalia will have a government by then.

I can't understand why the question, "what will we do with him after his sentence is up" would even be a consideration when deciding whether to prosecute.

Pirates!

As you may be aware, pirate attacks have been on the rise. Recently the crew of the ship Maersk Alabama managed to take their ship back from the pirates who attempted to capture it, though their captain, Richard Phillips, was taken and is being held hostage by the pirates.

Interestingly, there's been criticism of the crew for fighting back.

The logic of this criticism is:

• the pirates only want the money.
  
• fighting back is likely to damage the crew, the ship, or the cargo.
  
• if crews fight back, pirates are likely to become more violent.
  

I reject this criticism.

I certainly do believe that people who are in fear for their lives and safety cannot be judged for doing what they feel they need to to preserve same.  There's no shame in realizing you're outmatched and doing what you need to do to preserve your life, sanity, and various body parts.  If someone in such a situation chooses to cooperate with his/her captors in the hope of survival, that's what they need to do.

That said....

The standard advice to someone in a potentially violent situation has been, "give in".  If someone tries to rob you, give in - you shouldn't risk your life for the money in your wallet.  If someone tries to rob your business, give in - your customers and employees are more important than the till.  If a pirate boards your ship, give in - the ransom the company will pay is less important than your life and safety.  If someone hijacks your airplane, give in - the airlines will pay a ransom and you'll be inconvenienced for a few hours (or days), but that's certainly not as important as your life.

Except when it isn't.

What happens when you think someone wants your wallet and they really want to rape you?  Or when you think they want to ransom you and they want to maim you?  Or they want to hijack you, and really want to use your vessel as a weapon?

A relatively modest proposal

Here's an idea for the state legislatures to consider as long as they're revising marriage laws - limited term marriages.

One of the characteristics of civil marriage is that it is a permanent contract.  "Permanent", in this case, means "until formally dissolved by court action".  Pretty much any contract can be dissolved by court action, though I'm aware of few that can only be dissolved by court action (and while death may them part, there are specific legal obligations that carry on after death).

So why not create limited term marriages, perhaps with an automatic option to renew (for some new term) at the end of the term?  Consider the advantages:

• Divorce rates would plummet.  If people were married for, say, 5 years (with an option to renew) people who discovered they didn't get along would simply decline to renew at the end of the term.
• Marriages that do end could do so on a much less confrontational, far more friendly fashion.  No need to prove infidelity or irreconcilable differences, and no need to build up hard feelings staying together with no hope - just don't renew, everybody walks away, life goes on.
• Spousal abuse could be significantly reduced if the abusing spouse realizes that the abused spouse has an out - especially if abuse becomes a condition for immediate dissolution of the contract.

So why not marriage contracts of 5 years, 1 year, or even 90 days?

There's nothing halfway about Iowa

The Iowa supreme court will make it legal for a person of one sex to marry someone of the same sex later this month.  There are two obvious interpretations of this:

1. Marriage is a legal recognition of the love and commitment of one person to another, regardless of the gender of either, and the court has extended this to a group that has historically been discriminated against.  As such it has righted a historical wrong.
2. The court has redefined marriage in a fairly significant way.

Some of those in favor of interpretation 1 have argued that if someone can't marry someone of the same sex, then that's tantamount to saying "gay people can't get married" and that's discrimination.  

In fact, gay people can get married - to a member of the opposite sex just like anybody else.  If precedent can be believed, this has been part of a standard definition of marriage for at least 1,000 years (I'm being conservative here).  That's a considerable amount of precedent for the Iowa court to overturn.

In fact, there is considerably more precedent, both in North America and globally, for polygamy than for "gay marriage".  The former is accepted in many countries around the world, and has been accepted in parts of North America, whereas the latter has been out of favor legally for at least 1,000 years in every place I can think of.