Gay Marriage vs. Traditional Marriage The solution to this problem is simple: what is the POINT of being married? It’s something that society has generally taken very seriously for a very long time. It seems to be quite universally accepted as a man and a woman.

Why is this relatively universal?

Why hasn’t Gay Marriage been tried before?

These questions need to be answered. I’m no sociologist, just a bitch with a weblog, so the best I can do is write down what I think.

The 20th century saw genuine steps forward in making men equal to women. There have been other points in history where men and women were more or less equal, and one could certainly argue that influence women held made up for lack of genuine rights (indeed, wars were fought over women, how much more influence do you want?). But the 20th century went a long way in establishing that men and women are equally people.

Before this equalisation, women were frequently seen as property; first of their fathers, then of their husbands. Marriage was a partnership, but the ‘obey’ clause clearly indicated who was the senior partner.

Now that women have achieved equality with men, it seems they are now interchangeable with men (and vice versa).

That’s why it’s never happened before: women have never had enough status that they could be supplanted by a man: it wouldn’t make sense for one man to turn over all his assets to another. But now that’s not an issue.

Marriage has been watered down, thanks to divorce, pre-nuptial agreements, common-law arrangements. Gay marriage isn’t wrecking anything, the Traditional Definition of Marriage has already been wrecked!

Marriage is now the joining of equals, who can choose to end the joining!

If we want to end gay marriage, we can only do it by stripping away women’s rights.

THAT, my dear readers, is a bad idea.

So, I’m in support of Gay Marriage, because it is the sign that women are 100% equal with men.
  ¶ 3:00 PM 3 comments

  Democracy vs The World I have a sneaking suspicion that my generation may see the end of Democracy As We Know It. I kind of hope I’m wrong, and it’s tough to tell what would replace it entirely.

Even as Afghanistan has completed their first election ever, Iraq is preparing for their first ‘free’ election and Ukraine has demonstrating they won’t tolerate crooked politics, there is a certain ennui falling over democracy in North America. I know we didn’t invent democracy, but I’ve got a feeling that if we give it up, it’s not going to last long anywhere else.

Of course, it’s tough to say exactly at what point democracy ceases to exist. Certainly we vote for our representatives, and they make the laws. In Canada we currently have a Prime Minister who is theoretically in complete control, though he didn’t receive the support of a majority of Canadians. (I like to call that ‘Prime Minister Lite’.) So, is ANY decision he makes technically democratic? He doesn’t have the backing of a majority, just the backing of more than anyone else. Is that democracy?

In the USA there is a lot of talk that George Bush Jr won his second election as president because a great portion of the electorate was uneducated and ill-informed. True or false, their vote counts, doesn’t it? Should people meet minimum requirements before they can vote? Who sets those requirements?

In the European Union, they are wrangling with choosing the leaders of the whole Union. I’m not as familiar with that process as I am with Canadian/American politics, but I have heard that EU officials are not being selected by European citizens, but rather by other people in charge. Who will all these people be accountable to?

Of course, there is the United Nations, the biggest democratic dichotomy of them all. They routinely hold votes (which is good), however, their electorate contain scores of people who are not accountable to their own nation’s citizens. People who are there because their people CAN’T vote, and yet they get to vote.

Well, it’s good that the UN considers every nation equal. Otherwise, who’s going to come up with the criteria that one nation is better than another? And it’s not a great idea for the UN to enforce a specific governmental form on a country, what works for one group of people will be a disaster for another.

However, how can you let someone vote if they themselves don’t believe in voting?

The UN can only survive its schizophrenia for so long. This has to be treated, or the UN will fall apart. Perhaps the time for the UN is past: if the entire world were democratic, we’d get along without a forced forum. If the world eschews democracy as a whole, then the UN can’t work anyway.

Of course, for Democracy to decline, something has to replace it. I can’t imagine dictators taking over the ‘mature’ democracies. Of course, a few subtle moves, and you can create a dictatorship that certainly LOOKS like democracy. Hitler pulled a trick like that.

What’s more likely is a circle of ‘elites’ will manoeuvre to ensure that selection is limited, so that while people are voting, it ultimately doesn’t matter. Whether or not people catch on might be immaterial. If our leaders do a good job, it’s hard to argue with them. If our leaders do a bad job, they know they’ll be out on their ass.

I don’t think this is a better solution, but certainly the idea of a leader for life/until you screw up has merit. I think that the downfall of democracy is having to get elected means making promises that don’t make sense: great leaders have to compromise their way to power, and are handcuffed from really using it.

One effective leader can supplant democracy. The question is: what comes next?

The civilised world was once democratic, and then lost it. It can happen again.

  ¶ 1:35 PM 2 comments

  Common Sense vs. Missile Defence There’s a big deal these days about how Paul Martin, the Prime Minister (Lite) of Canada, doesn’t approve of George Bush’s proposed Missile Defence Programme (aka Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars).

I hate to say it, but I agree with Mr. Martin on this issue. Perhaps ‘agree’ isn’t the right word. I’m not aware of an expression in English where you agree with someone, but for completely different reasons. Perhaps other cultures have it, or perhaps it’s a decidedly modern idea. Or perhaps that’s what ‘politics’ really means.

I agree with Mr. Martin that the missile defence is a bad idea. Of course, he opposes the weaponisation of space… as though a ballistic missile travelling through the same space somehow isn’t a weapon. He also feels that this will create a new arms race: everyone will be trying to find a weapon to defeat the missile shield. This is absurd, as the missile shield is currently intended to stop a handful of missiles. The technology already exists to defeat it: MORE MISSILES.

However, this is my point: the missile defense isn’t going to work against a bad guy who really wants ‘us’ dead. So why spend the money at all? I’m not privy to the design details nor contractor costs, but surely if the USA has an enemy who would use the requisitely small number of ballistic missiles for the defence to work, it would cost less to simply invade this Rogue Nation than build this system.

As for people not learning from history, I’ve got two words: Maginot Line.

France hoped to pre-empt WW2 by defending against WW1. I’ve seen Saving Private Ryan enough times to know the Maginot Line didn’t work. The Americans are trying to stop the next war by defending against the Cold War.

If I’m not being clear, history has a number: 9/11.

The missile defence would be useless against another such attack. Terrorists are going to strike from within the USA, not from an ocean away. Spend the money where it’s going to prevent all attacks.

If a nation is going to launch an ICBM at the USA, they’re going to have to be invaded anyway. With the Bush Doctrine in place, why wait?
  ¶ 10:48 PM 0 comments