Covenant Marriages as a Guide

I have often discussed the idea of Covenant Marriage, and I have been conflicted about it. On one hand, I like the idea that couples commit to their relationship, and agree to take steps to mend it when things look like falling apart. A promise to obtain counselling when the relationship is heading to separation is a great way to spell out this commitment. But the fact that they present a government intrusion into personal lives, supported by the religious right, and that such movements often emphasize 'a man and a woman' marriage above all else makes me really uncomfortable.

I guess I won't be supporting covenant marriages politically anytime soon. However, I believe that the serious consideration required to enter into a covenant marriage, and the commitment and promises involved in covenant marriages are a great guide for couples who want to make extra promises to each other to make it work for life.

'Conservative'?

In political and social debates, some people like to use Conservative as their badge of honour, whilst others would like to use it as their ultimate insult. What's my take on that?

10 years ago, I generally disparaged conservatives. Many conservatives were supporting racist and homophobic policies at that time, often under the false title of 'family values', and it was something that I wouldn't tolerate.

Nowadays it's different. There are many conservative leaders who genuinely believe in family values for all, and would support marriage equality too as a result. There are many conservative leaders who have taken a lead in the promotion of multicultural values. In fact, they share pretty much the same worldview on social matters as me, don't they?

The truth is that, conservative is a label I neither commend nor disparage, that I neither identify with or reject, nowadays, because it means different things to different people. I make it clear that I support family values. I make it clear that I oppose racism and homophobia. Isn't that enough?

The "Permanently Committed, Type Unspecified" Movement

The "Permanently Committed, Type Unspecified" movement is all about encouraging commitment, providing choice for those who want to enter permanent commitment with a lifelong partner, and providing equality between different forms of permanent commitment. Some forms of commitment are associated with a particular kind of culture, other forms are associated with other kinds of culture. Some forms of commitment require church or government approval, others are based entirely on self-regulation, still others are somewhere in between. What is important is that they should all be encouraged, and they should all be available as options.

The "Permanently Committed, Type Unspecified" movement is about encouraging couples who are permanently committed to just say that they are "Permanently Committed, Type Unspecified", to strengthen the brand of 'permanent commitment' and help shake lose the cultural baggage associated with each type of commitment. For example, in some cultures, religious marriage is a must, for commitment, whilst in others, it is seen as capitulation to an 'oppressive tradition'. These arguments are all toxic, and take away from the importance of commitment.

The movement is also compassionate. Some cultures require entering into a religious or government sanctioned agreement to be seen as permanently committed. The trouble is that religious bodies or even governments may not be compassionate enough. For example, in some countries, the only legal arrangement recognised is a heterosexual marriage, and only members of certain religions may enter into one. This is completely unfair and uncompassionate to minorities. By shifting to this universal model, we are empowering people, and maintaining our principles to be compassionate in all walks of life.

It is easy to become part of the movement. There's no membership needed. There's no events to attend. If you are in a permanently committed relationship, the next time your friend asks you about your relationship status, just say that you are "Permanently Committed, Type Unspecified". As for those who are not yet in such relationships, you can do your bit by talking about this with your friends.

Marriage Will Never be Obsolete. Here's the Future.

You all know that I am in the business of fighting for marriage equality, and I am serious about it. Recently, somebody asked me: marriage will be obsolete anyway, why fight for it?

The truth is that, marriage will NEVER be obsolete, and I really don't want to see it become obsolete either. I believe almost all those fighting for marriage equality will see it the same way. This is why it is a meaningful fight for us.

But nowadays couples are not choosing marriage in increasing numbers right? 25% of children are already not born in marriages, right?

Marriage is but one way of permanent commitment, truth to be told. It is especially appealing to those in some religious faiths, and maybe less appealing to others. But it is here to stay. Other forms of permanent commitment include civil unions and domestic partnerships, other religious covenants, and cohabitation backed up by declaration of permanent commitment to friends and family, for example. Even within marriage, some people choose a 'biblical' marriage, others opt for a civil ceremony. More choice that lead to the same objectives is always better. That objective is permanent commitment, and one that we would like to see encouraged. That means encouraging marriage, for now and forever.

In the future, marriage won't be the only choice for permanent commitment, but an equally valid choice amongst others to achieve the same objective. Therefore, it will always be encouraged, and will always be relevant. Therefore, we need to fight for marriage equality, and ignore those who want instead the 'abolition of marriage'.

The Third Enemy

The two big enemies for us have always been racism and homophobia. Now let me add a third: right wing political correctness. So what is right wing political correctness and what makes it as scary as racism and homophobia?

Political correctness in general means that we have to speak in certain ways, to avoid offending certain principles. Traditional, or left wing, political correctness mandates that we don't speak in racist, sexist or homophobic ways. It was done out of compassion and decency, and it doesn't really stifle any discussion of ideas - unless you think being racist, sexist and homophobic are perfectly valid ideas. Right wing political correctness is different - it suppresses legitimate ideas. Like making opposition to unjust wars an unpatriotic thing, or criticism of faith-based programs as anti-religion. It also tried to make same sex marriages a taboo topic, unsuccessfully fortuntely. Here are a few examples:

The Dixie Chicks were subject to boycotts and accusations of being treasonous when they spoke out against George Bush's Iraq War in 2003. Apparently, if you were American, you had to support the war, even if you felt it was unjust. And you had to like President Bush, even if you really can't stand his policies. I thought it was a very scary idea at that time, and I still think it's a very scary idea.

Class warfare is the label applied to almost any policies to help poor people. It is all about demonizing any government who would dare to embrace social democratic reforms to deliver social justice. The result is that governments increasingly don't dare to touch that topic. Which results in continued social injustice and real suffering out there. This is how right wing political correctness works.

Finally, let's talk about an example of right wing political correctness GONE MAD - their reverence for 'biblical marriage' and by extension putting down everyone who lived outside that model. It's the very reason they so vehemently oppose the legislation for same sex marriages, even when it does not affect them at all. This takes multiple forms like marriage promotion and defining abstinence programs against the standard of biblical marriage. It's a real insult to the ability of adults to choose the cultural institutions they identify with. And I am speaking this as a person who supports lifelong monogamy.

On Open Relationships

The open relationship rumours of multiple Hollywood couples in recent years has got me thinking.

People should indeed have the freedom to live their lives without judgment from their fellow humans. I guess people should back off from judging.

But personally, open relationships are not for me, because I believe that upholding the spirit of commitment is better. What does that mean? Let me put it this way. I am not inclined that way, but I know of many married men (and some women) who would otherwise like multiple sexual partners, but chose the path of commitment in monogamy because they believe such an arrangement to be best for their family, and that family welfare should come before any personal sexual needs. I happen to completely agree with them here, and this I think is the spirit of commitment. Some may say that one can be emotionally and socially committed without being monogamous. I am, however, worried that many people just cannot do that.

Catherine Zeta-Jones Gets Treatment for Bipolar

Catherine Zeta-Jones has reportedly checked into a treatment centre for treatment of bipolar disorder. She had previously revealed her condition back in 2011.

Mental health and illness is an often ignored topic in society. I hope high profile cases like these can raise awareness. We need to talk about and acknowledge this problem big time.

Last Meals in Texas (By Anna Belle)

In 2011, the state of Texas abolished special last meals for condemned prisoners. The reason? A particular condemned prisoner ordered a huge meal and did not eat it.

That would be easy to fix, right? For example, by limiting the costs of last meals to $40, for example. But for some politicians, it seems, law and order means being mean to prisoners at all costs.

I guess this issue should receive some attention. Maybe we need to start a campaign to bring back the last meal in Texas, or at least to prevent other jurisdictions from doing the same. Executions are not something most are comfortable talking about, but still, it is a part of human reality.

I Will NEVER be Supporting Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs

Since my last post on The Sex Ed Wars, I have received comments that I should sign on to the Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage bandwagon if I was for family values. Let me make this clear - I will NEVER be supporting Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage programs, and this is an article of faith for me.

My position on Sex Ed in schools have been well described in the last article. Outside of that context, I am all for freedom of choice for all adults, as I have said, but I am all for abstinence outside of firm, permanent commitment, and I will support its promotion as a cultural thing amongst adults. I will not stand for making any position, including mine, to be taught as orthodoxy for adult behaviour in schools, and be part of the crowd who is being accused of indoctrinating people, as it would hurt our cultural cause.

What I will also not support in any context is any Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage programs, and that is for absolutely any context. The emphasis on Marriage is simply not compatible with my beliefs, and it would hurt my conscience to say otherwise. It is ironic that it is my long term support for marriage equality that taught me that no moral program should be tied to a government and church sanctioned institution, and that is what marriage is. My standard is for abstinence until permanent commitment, which includes, but is not limited to marriage, and I believe that practically speaking it is as strong a standard as Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage. And to me, that is a major difference, something I will never be able to gloss over.

The Sex Ed Wars

So the Sex Ed Wars in America have potentially been ignited again. Abstinence-only speaker Pam Stenzel's recent speech at a West Virginia high school has upset some students, because her speech was perceived to be aggressive and shaming, according to some reports. Whether this is the case remains controversial.

However, I wish to point out one thing. Abstinence education has been shown to work, and therefore has my support. Whether it is abstinence-only or abstinence-plus (with a strong focus on abstinence plus preparing students for future relationships) should be decided by relevant cultural conditions, and the decision should be up to the local community. However, the type of abstinence education shown to work in the 2010 study that I read was a non-value-laden type. Religious themes, ideas about marriage and shaming was kept out of it, and it also did not make LGBT students feel marginalised, unlike some other abstinence programs.

Abstinence programs tend to come on a spectrum, and I make it clear that I only support those without religious doctrine, marriage doctrines, alienating LGBT students, shaming and the like, because I am an evidence based and inclusive person. Students should be able to decide on what they believe in when they are over 21, and in school the only aim should be to promote abstinence, and NOT to indoctrinate students in any way. I am all for commitment and lifelong monogamy, as readers of my works would know, but it should be voluntary, if it is to be successful.

Abstinence programs can work, but only some do, it appears. American abstinence programs with religious and marriage type doctrines are, from what I can see, the product of single mother hating right wing economists (it came with welfare reform) and the religious right (hence the emphasis on marriage, and sometimes 'biblical' marriage), and anything that comes out of that partnership wouldn't be expected to work anyway, would it?

To Subsidise Abortion Pill? (By Anna Belle)

In Australia, a committee is looking at whether to subsidize the abortion drug RU-486 with taxpayer money, so that it will cost only $72 for most people. Some women's rights advocates are cheering them on to make that decision - but I really have to say that I am not so sure.

I am not going into a debate on my personal position on abortion. But let me say this - I do know many friends who are opposed to the idea of abortions, particularly when done for social or economic reasons. To force that their tax money be used to subsidize abortions would be quite wrong, I guess, and something I would be really uncomfortable about. I was really against using taxpayer money for the Iraq War in 2003 when most taxpayers were against the war, and I guess it would violate my principle if I do not decide likewise here.

What do you people think?

Court Morning After Pill Decision Raises Controversy

A Brooklyn court has decided that the morning after pill should be available without prescription to women of all ages. This effectively overturns a decision by Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius in 2011 limiting the scheme to women over 17. That decision was supported by President Obama, invoking his daughters.

In the ruling, the judge said the policy was "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable". However, I don't agree. If you have a policy, it must draw the line somewhere. That doesn't make the policy arbitrary, just as nobody would argue that limiting some films to 18+ audiences was arbitrary and therefore invalid.

The judge also said "the motivation for the secretary's action was obviously political". However, I don't agree again. I was on the record supporting President Obama back then, agreeing with his fatherly concern regarding the matter. I have to say that I still feel that way. One does not need to be political to not want teenagers to be able to access the morning after pill without parental notification. Many parents would agree with me here, I believe. Mr Obama is not somebody who puts politics before principle, if anything. He publicly supported marriage equality BEFORE an election campaign. How many politicians have been willing to do that?

I seriously cannot understand this ruling.

On the other hand, I do acknowledge that we are talking about a complex subject. There are pros and cons to every decision, but my point was that after weighing the pros and cons, the Obama administration's decision was a valid decision whether you agree with it or not (I happen to agree with it), and a judge shouldn't be able to overturn it.

Selena Gomez, Spring Breakers and my 90s Standards

Some people have responded to my post about Selena Gomez and her recent appearance on Spring Breakers with a question: why am I being so negative on her, given that I have said that I don't abide by 1950s standards, and rather exalt a 90s-esque balance. There have been plenty of people who dress sexily in the 1990s, they said, and I haven't judged them this way.

But it is about the content and market too. Does Selena Gomez still want to be part of the family friendly market or not? This is the central question. In the good old days, where my standards were formed, people had a right to be 'sexy', but those who want to sell to family friendly markets will always be somewhat, well, family friendly at least, and will not appear in movies like Spring Breakers, in my opinion.

The ultimate question remains, does Selena Gomez still want to be part of the family friendly market or not? I really hope she does.

Principles Will Keep Us Sane

In the 1990s there was a good balance of liberal acceptance and family values. But it was just the way things were at that time - there were no particular underlying principles. It was unsurprising that everything fell apart by the early 2000s. Right wing shock jocks were campaigning against fundamental human rights everywhere, and the culture became degenerative to the point where every other song was about sex.

I think we need to have principles, if we are to have a great, long-lived culture. From my observation of the past decade, I have developed these principles for myself, and hopefully the rest of the world also take it on. They are:
-Equal respect for all beings, the way they are born. People come before traditions, institutions and rules, always. I respect certain traditions and institutions like everyone else, but they cannot be justified to not change when they clearly are being discriminatory.

-Freedom to speak on lifestyle matters - but only lifestyle choice matters, and where there is no doubt something is a lifestyle choice. We should err on the non-judgmental side whenever there is any doubt, and no, your interpretation of your religious text doesn't count as beyond all doubt. Remember, many people thought being gay was a lifestyle choice too. Examples of lifestyle choices beyond doubt would include monogamy vs polygamy, recreational drug use, abstinence outside commitment or the lack thereof, etc, in my opinion. There are no serious arguments for these lifestyle differences being inborn at all that I am aware of.

-No matter what lifestyle choices you believe in and promote, you should support the maximum freedom for people to choose their own. The only reason to restrict freedom is when there may be harm to others, and to be sure that this ground isn't abused, people should only support such a restriction of freedom when a large majority of people believe that it is necessary (e.g. 75% +). Otherwise, one can put their case out for the new restriction, but should not really campaign for it unless there is clear 75% support.

-In a scenario where everyone supports freedom, there will be more freedom of speech for everyone too. For example, I promote a drug-free clean lifestyle but sometimes I am hated on because of this. I guess it's because they don't know I also support the freedom of people to live whatever lifestyle they like, and therefore oppose any prosecution of drug users who do not in any way associate with the illegal drug trade.

I think these principles provide for inclusion and tolerance society-wide. They also strike a clear balance between freedom to live a chosen lifestyle and freedom to speak up and promote family values.

The 90s Model

The 90s model, a model of cultural stances based on the superb arrangement of things in the 1990s, is something that I am proud to support. After all, it's the model of success. I have objective proof of this.

Let's look at how the other models stack up against the 1990s model:
1) The 1950s model. There was a great deal of family values, but the atmosphere was repressive and not conducive to real progress on issues. It was a bad time to be a minority of any kind.
2) The 1960s model. There was real progress on many issues, but this decade was a double edged sword. It proved to be the beginning of tolerance in the West, but also the beginning of decadence in the West.
3) The 1970s model. There were lots of arguments, and society was nearly paralysed in more ways than one. Family values also fell away quickly, for multiple reasons, which is not surprising when everything else good also fell away.
4) The 1980s model. There was too much greed, and not enough awareness paid to emerging problems like HIV/AIDS. One big mistake we should never repeat.
5) The 2000s model. Lots of polarisation, lots of hate everywhere. Popular culture and music became repulsive in many ways. Dangerous drug use soared, and the sexualisation of the media proceeded without brakes. A total disaster.

In fact, these models all serve as warnings for us not to repeat certain mistakes. For example:
1) The 1950s taught us that there should be a bottomline of freedom for individuals, and repressive institutions repressing minorities should not be endorsed for the sake of stability.
2) The 1960s and 70s taught us that some values should be held dear, or they will fall away irreversibly.
3) The 1980s taught us that greed is not good, and emerging problems even when they only affect minorities should be dealt with with care.
4) The 2000s taught us that hate and divisiveness can tear a society apart.

So what is the 90s model? It is a model of tolerance and acceptance for all. But whilst doing that we remain proud of our culture, our family values. In fact, we are not afraid to show it. Allowing freedom for everyone doesn't mean that we need to shut up about our most treasured values, it merely requires that we do not judge people who do not live our lifestyle.