Believe it or not, there are gay couples out there who actually believe that marriage is 'too straight' for them, and they don't wish to take part in it. Now the anti-equality people have snatched this up as a vindication of their belief that marriage is heterosexual only. In turn, some sections of the equality community have questioned the motives of those gay couples who don't want marriage.
Actually, those gay couples who believe that marriage is 'too straight' are not only free to do so, they have a point too. Marriage will always be 98% straight even with marriage equality, and changing from 100% to 98% doesn't change anything really. Marriage will stay a straight culture based institution. If they want a gay culture based institution they can have their own.
But how about forcing all gay couples away from marriage? Just because it's straight culture based, doesn't mean it should exclude gay people. Society operates at its best whenever its institutions try to accommodate minorities' aspirations too. Our popular culture is mainly made by and for straight people, but does not exclude gay people. Likewise, to exclude Asian people from a festival of European culture because they may taint it with their Asianness is a very racist idea. They are welcome to participate as long as they respect that it is a festival of European culture, not Asian culture. They would not be forced to join the Asian culture festival instead. Moreover, marriage itself already inherently has that flexibility and compassionate accommodation - marriage has historically often been about procreation, but infertile couples are not excluded, for example.
Some gay people like to have a culture of their own, but most gay people from my observations tend to want to join mainstream society, and would fully respect the predominantly heterosexual character of it, as long as they are also allowed to join. Heterosexual society should accommodate them, therefore, just like most gay bars and gay parades also welcome straight people.
The other issue is that marriage, as an unfortunate consequence of developments during Western history, is written into the law, so marriage discrimination is legal discrimination.
Therefore, even if some gay couples want a gay culture based institution for commitment rather than marriage, that doesn't defeat the need for marriage equality.
I am a Proud 'Liberaltarian': Libertarian and Social Democrat Fusion
When you read that headline, did it confuse you? In much of the West, libertarians are thought of as right wingers resolutely opposed to any government wealth redistribution, and social democrats are very much pro-welfare.
I did start my adult life as a complete libertarian. I still do believe that freedom is the best, and a free competition is the best way to get great outcomes. But, even with my limited education in economics, I do know of something called market failure. Even traditional libertarians know that a country cannot survive without an army, a police force and some sort of government, and none of it is provided by the free market. But traditional libertarians have overlooked other forms of market failure - for example, loss of freedom for the disadvantaged due to market forces, media empires determined to force a particular outcome on a democratic election (see Australian election 2013 for example), and loss of freedom for people of minority ethnic groups and LGBT citizens due to hate crimes and lack of anti-discrimination legislation. I believe it is the government's responsibility to address these too, in a truly free nation. Since many of these things do cost money to implement, an obsession with small government must give way to the idea of having enough government to maintain freedom for everyone. Hence, economically, I would have to be centre-left, or social democratic.
Of course, many things about libertarianism remain valid even in this 'expanded' view of freedom and what a libertarian government should do. For example, I support the following positions which are shared by many if not most libertarians:
Citizen initiated referenda to enable people to make laws even when the government would not act (only when ruled by a court to be compatible with civil rights - every petition for referendum must be submitted to the court for ruling)
Marriage privatization - and I have a long term plan for that, rather than just talk
Opposition to 'affirmative action'
Opposition to 'antitrust laws' and other competition laws
Opposition to compulsory military service
Opposition to military expansion beyond the need of self defence
Opposition to military action not directly related to national defence
Opposition to environmental regulations and taxes not clearly supported by democratic mandate
Recall elections to ensure governments cannot act outside of democratic mandate
Removal of victimless 'crimes', including legalization of marijuana
Regular judicial review to remove all unenforceable legislation
Remove of all protectionism in international trade
End all middle class welfare, corporate subsidies and farm subsidies
Support for strong civil liberties guarantees against populism or 'security based excuses'
Support for states rights and opposition to centralism in federations like the US and Australia
Support for the government maintaining a morally neutral stance in matters including abortion, feminism, lifestyle choices, competing visions of family values, the climate change debate, etc.
I also happen to believe that once we have a strong social safety net, we can more effectively embrace the free market. Currently, deregulation has often had to be compromised, when there are potential devastating effects on people's livelihoods. A strong social safety net would mean deregulation can occur without this compromise.
I did start my adult life as a complete libertarian. I still do believe that freedom is the best, and a free competition is the best way to get great outcomes. But, even with my limited education in economics, I do know of something called market failure. Even traditional libertarians know that a country cannot survive without an army, a police force and some sort of government, and none of it is provided by the free market. But traditional libertarians have overlooked other forms of market failure - for example, loss of freedom for the disadvantaged due to market forces, media empires determined to force a particular outcome on a democratic election (see Australian election 2013 for example), and loss of freedom for people of minority ethnic groups and LGBT citizens due to hate crimes and lack of anti-discrimination legislation. I believe it is the government's responsibility to address these too, in a truly free nation. Since many of these things do cost money to implement, an obsession with small government must give way to the idea of having enough government to maintain freedom for everyone. Hence, economically, I would have to be centre-left, or social democratic.
Of course, many things about libertarianism remain valid even in this 'expanded' view of freedom and what a libertarian government should do. For example, I support the following positions which are shared by many if not most libertarians:
Citizen initiated referenda to enable people to make laws even when the government would not act (only when ruled by a court to be compatible with civil rights - every petition for referendum must be submitted to the court for ruling)
Marriage privatization - and I have a long term plan for that, rather than just talk
Opposition to 'affirmative action'
Opposition to 'antitrust laws' and other competition laws
Opposition to compulsory military service
Opposition to military expansion beyond the need of self defence
Opposition to military action not directly related to national defence
Opposition to environmental regulations and taxes not clearly supported by democratic mandate
Recall elections to ensure governments cannot act outside of democratic mandate
Removal of victimless 'crimes', including legalization of marijuana
Regular judicial review to remove all unenforceable legislation
Remove of all protectionism in international trade
End all middle class welfare, corporate subsidies and farm subsidies
Support for strong civil liberties guarantees against populism or 'security based excuses'
Support for states rights and opposition to centralism in federations like the US and Australia
Support for the government maintaining a morally neutral stance in matters including abortion, feminism, lifestyle choices, competing visions of family values, the climate change debate, etc.
I also happen to believe that once we have a strong social safety net, we can more effectively embrace the free market. Currently, deregulation has often had to be compromised, when there are potential devastating effects on people's livelihoods. A strong social safety net would mean deregulation can occur without this compromise.
Moving to Marriage Privatization - First Steps
Whenever one examines the issue of marriage privatization, there are indeed a lot of practical problems associated with its implementation. What we need to do to prepare for the day when we are ready for marriage privatization is to prepare the legal infrastructure for it. And it is going to take some time.
One popular argument opposing marriage privatization is that governments would have no way to distribute couple benefits and divide assets and settle custody issues in divorce when marriage is no longer set in law. Some even said that there would be difficulty applying domestic violence laws. But this does not have to be the case, and certainly is not the case everywhere.
Analyses pointing out the above problem usually come from a purely US perspective. In the US, politicians have had an unhealthy obsession with marriage as enshrined in law for decades. But in Australia, for example, as I understand all the above is applied equally to married couples, couples in civil unions or registered relationships, and cohabiting de-facto couples who have been together for more than 2-3 years. The system in Australia has been functioning like that for a long time and it hasn't collapsed - there is no reason why the US cannot follow suit.
Another thing we can do is to review the benefits given to married couples and decide whether to tailor them to needs so they can be more justifiable rather than sentimentally attached to legal marriage. For example, I firmly believe that tax breaks for married couples should only apply to those couples who have children under 21. It should cease to apply to childless couples or couples who only have adult children, because they do not need such a benefit, and it would be unjustifiable to provide it to them without providing the same to any two single people who wanted to share in it.
Whilst we are trying amend marriage legislation around the world in pursuit of marriage equality, the wording of the legislation can also be considered. Canada has put it best in my opinion. The Civil Marriage Act of 2005 states that 'marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others'. Notice it says 'for civil purposes' - three words I believe should be in the marriage acts of every country.
One popular argument opposing marriage privatization is that governments would have no way to distribute couple benefits and divide assets and settle custody issues in divorce when marriage is no longer set in law. Some even said that there would be difficulty applying domestic violence laws. But this does not have to be the case, and certainly is not the case everywhere.
Analyses pointing out the above problem usually come from a purely US perspective. In the US, politicians have had an unhealthy obsession with marriage as enshrined in law for decades. But in Australia, for example, as I understand all the above is applied equally to married couples, couples in civil unions or registered relationships, and cohabiting de-facto couples who have been together for more than 2-3 years. The system in Australia has been functioning like that for a long time and it hasn't collapsed - there is no reason why the US cannot follow suit.
Another thing we can do is to review the benefits given to married couples and decide whether to tailor them to needs so they can be more justifiable rather than sentimentally attached to legal marriage. For example, I firmly believe that tax breaks for married couples should only apply to those couples who have children under 21. It should cease to apply to childless couples or couples who only have adult children, because they do not need such a benefit, and it would be unjustifiable to provide it to them without providing the same to any two single people who wanted to share in it.
Whilst we are trying amend marriage legislation around the world in pursuit of marriage equality, the wording of the legislation can also be considered. Canada has put it best in my opinion. The Civil Marriage Act of 2005 states that 'marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others'. Notice it says 'for civil purposes' - three words I believe should be in the marriage acts of every country.
An Olive Branch to Marriage Equality Opponents
Whilst I passionately fight for marriage equality because I believe in civil rights and equality under the law in every area, I really cannot be honest if I said my opponents are all homophobic bigots. There are indeed plenty of people who have a problem with 'marriage equality' but who otherwise would be decent towards gay couples.
The thing we should recognise is this - the whole struggle is based on a historical wrong. Power hungry governments assumed control of marriage in Europe, which then spread all around the world. The law should not have a definition of marriage at all - it did OK without one for many centuries. I totally respect that people can have different views on the definition of an institution, but now that it has come to this, those of us that demand civil rights equality must fight for our position. It's a fight that we should not need to have had, but circumstances made it necessary. So if anything, we should not blame the opponents, we should blame history.
I guess the Canadian Civil Marriage Act has the best answer. Whilst it legislated for marriage equality, it also states this: "For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom." This, I believe, should be in every marriage act across the world, along with equal marriage rights.
The thing we should recognise is this - the whole struggle is based on a historical wrong. Power hungry governments assumed control of marriage in Europe, which then spread all around the world. The law should not have a definition of marriage at all - it did OK without one for many centuries. I totally respect that people can have different views on the definition of an institution, but now that it has come to this, those of us that demand civil rights equality must fight for our position. It's a fight that we should not need to have had, but circumstances made it necessary. So if anything, we should not blame the opponents, we should blame history.
I guess the Canadian Civil Marriage Act has the best answer. Whilst it legislated for marriage equality, it also states this: "For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom." This, I believe, should be in every marriage act across the world, along with equal marriage rights.
Australians, Please Save Our Best Prime Minister Ever!
Kevin Rudd, current Australian Prime Minister, is facing a tough election tomorrow. He has a great record but the circus they call the media here is trying to get him out of office, by spreading unfound fear about our economy, an economy that he was responsible for saving from the Global Financial Crisis.
He has got to be one of the most courageous Prime Ministers in our history:
Meanwhile, his opponent Tony Abbott is quite elusive on this and other matters.
And it's not just marriage equality. Consider the following: it would be a shame if Australia missed out on ANY of these things, don't you think?
Meanwhile, the media are desperate to destroy the best PM we ever had, likely because its interests lie elsewhere:
Just something to make your blood boil, isn't it?
Final words: If you are Australian, please consider your vote carefully. If you are not Australian, then it may help to raise what I just said with an Australian you might know. Australia just cannot afford to lose a great PM like Kevin Rudd.
He has got to be one of the most courageous Prime Ministers in our history:
Meanwhile, his opponent Tony Abbott is quite elusive on this and other matters.
And it's not just marriage equality. Consider the following: it would be a shame if Australia missed out on ANY of these things, don't you think?
Meanwhile, the media are desperate to destroy the best PM we ever had, likely because its interests lie elsewhere:
Just something to make your blood boil, isn't it?
Final words: If you are Australian, please consider your vote carefully. If you are not Australian, then it may help to raise what I just said with an Australian you might know. Australia just cannot afford to lose a great PM like Kevin Rudd.
I'm Not Going to Fight For Marriage Privatization Anytime Soon
In response to my latest article about marriage privatization, there were plenty of responses along the lines of 'why don't you start a movement for marriage privatization'?
I mean, I do support marriage privatization, and it addresses problems that marriage equality cannot. For example, nobody will need to beg a rogue government to recognise their relationships anymore, the new civil unions system can not only provide for married couples all the needs they have now but can also be extended to for example two widows living together, etc.
But as I mentioned in the last post, the current legal infrastructure makes it impractical to achieve right now. Plus creating any further distraction from the last civil rights movement in history, marriage equality, is not morally sound, in my opinion. Especially to highlight a cause that just cannot be achieved in the next 20 years anyway.
Instead, I will be focusing on bringing the benefits of marriage privatization to society, whilst keeping the issue alive for those who are interested. For example, my Make Your Marriage Count movement aims to do just that, in an apolitical-person-friendly format.
I mean, I do support marriage privatization, and it addresses problems that marriage equality cannot. For example, nobody will need to beg a rogue government to recognise their relationships anymore, the new civil unions system can not only provide for married couples all the needs they have now but can also be extended to for example two widows living together, etc.
But as I mentioned in the last post, the current legal infrastructure makes it impractical to achieve right now. Plus creating any further distraction from the last civil rights movement in history, marriage equality, is not morally sound, in my opinion. Especially to highlight a cause that just cannot be achieved in the next 20 years anyway.
Instead, I will be focusing on bringing the benefits of marriage privatization to society, whilst keeping the issue alive for those who are interested. For example, my Make Your Marriage Count movement aims to do just that, in an apolitical-person-friendly format.
Marriage Privatization: The Realities, and How We Can Overcome Them
I first advocated for marriage privatization back in 2004. (Just google it if you don't know what it means) It is the idea that the government just doesn't legislate for 'marriage' at all - it will be a cultural and religious thing not mentioned by law. There are two forms of this movement - one is to transfer all current marriages to civil union status, and transfer all laws associated with marriage to civil unions. I support this form of marriage privatization, since it is much simpler and not socially radical - there is no change to the everyday functioning of society. The other form is doing away with a one-size-fits-all status altogether, and everyone instead negotiates their own martial contracts which are lodged with the government. Somehow I think that's a radical change people won't appreciate.
But the point is academic anyway. The current structure of the law means that there is no convenient way of mutual recognition of anything not called a marriage between different countries, and between different state and federal governments within one country. So we just don't have the legal infrastructure for that yet. Maybe one day we will, but until then, we cannot proceed with marriage privatization in law.
Anyway, that's unfortunate, because I happen to be a staunch believer in marriage privatization. So what can we do? There are several things we can do to slowly kick-start the process.
1) Cultivate a cultural view of marriage that is distinct and separate from the legal status of marriage. One word can have multiple meanings - like a bill can be a bill of parliament or a cutting instrument. Of course, the cultural marriage should be cherished above and beyond how we view the legal status of marriage.
2) Governments can offer parallel civil union or registered partnership systems, open to all couples, with the full set of rights and responsibilities found in legal marriages.
3) Encourage respect for marriage as a cultural institution, rather than as a legal contract.
4) Demand respect for all relationships and marriages, no matter how they are registered with the government, or not.
5) Respect that there are different views of marriage, and celebrate them all. For example, a church may believe marriage really means those married under its laws, whilst gay and lesbian citizens may believe in gay and lesbian marriage even if their church or government does not. Both these views can exist, and co-exist peacefully, we believe.
But the point is academic anyway. The current structure of the law means that there is no convenient way of mutual recognition of anything not called a marriage between different countries, and between different state and federal governments within one country. So we just don't have the legal infrastructure for that yet. Maybe one day we will, but until then, we cannot proceed with marriage privatization in law.
Anyway, that's unfortunate, because I happen to be a staunch believer in marriage privatization. So what can we do? There are several things we can do to slowly kick-start the process.
1) Cultivate a cultural view of marriage that is distinct and separate from the legal status of marriage. One word can have multiple meanings - like a bill can be a bill of parliament or a cutting instrument. Of course, the cultural marriage should be cherished above and beyond how we view the legal status of marriage.
2) Governments can offer parallel civil union or registered partnership systems, open to all couples, with the full set of rights and responsibilities found in legal marriages.
3) Encourage respect for marriage as a cultural institution, rather than as a legal contract.
4) Demand respect for all relationships and marriages, no matter how they are registered with the government, or not.
5) Respect that there are different views of marriage, and celebrate them all. For example, a church may believe marriage really means those married under its laws, whilst gay and lesbian citizens may believe in gay and lesbian marriage even if their church or government does not. Both these views can exist, and co-exist peacefully, we believe.
Rudd and Albo, Three More Years!
The Australian election is coming up. My friends, in life there aren't many easy choices, but here is one. I believe we have the clearest choice in the country's history this time. In my opinion, anybody not voting for the return of the Rudd government is a fool - there's no nice way of putting this.
Here are my reasons:
1) The Rudd government has been a good custodian of our country. Its economy has weathered the global financial crisis well, and I trust that under the Rudd government we will weather any future challenges, including the end of the mining boom, very well.
2) Kevin Rudd and Anthony Albanese support marriage equality. In contrast, Tony Abbott has called it a 'fashion', and even prevented his colleagues from voting for it! Tony Abbott is every bit a right wing extremist who will take away freedom, equality and opportunity when it fits the right wing agenda.
3) Tony Abbott's sister is in a committed lesbian relationship, and hopes to get married. If Abbott does not even care about his sister, will he care about the rest of the country?
4) Tony Abbott's economic policies hurt families. Workchoices and 15% GST are possibilities, and to see their impact one only needs to look at the original GST and Workchoices as implemented by the Howard government. Going even further, Tony Abbott has talked about changing the already meagre Newstart allowance so that potentially people will have to move miles away from their families to work in mines and farms when they are not even trained to do so! An Abbott government will be toxic for families. For this reason alone it is scary.
5) The 'direct action' environmental policy is not only inferior to the Rudd government's Emissions Trading Scheme, it is also very costly and will lead to either unnecessary new taxes or cuts in spending - ultimately, it is families who get hurt. All this so that the Coalition can have a 'different' policy!
6) Team Abbott have been playing dirty, in my opinion. They have released policies which do not add up in a hope to get over the line. The Murdoch-led media has also been very biased, hellbent on getting Abbott into office. One widely suspected reason is because Murdoch fears the government's National Broadband Network will affect the business of Foxtel. All this cannot be rewarded. We need to show them that this is a democracy, and WE are in charge.
7) Tony Abbott has also repeatedly singled out the Greens as an 'extremist party', probably because they wouldn't support him to be PM in the 2010 hung parliament negotiations. There are some things the Greens do that I will not agree to, but I believe the Liberals under Abbott are much more extreme than the Greens. Even under Howard they had Workchoices, something more extreme than any Green policy will ever be. And Abbott looks more of a right wing extremist than even Howard. The pot calling the kettle black is just not on.
Therefore, isn't it a clear cut choice?
Here are my reasons:
1) The Rudd government has been a good custodian of our country. Its economy has weathered the global financial crisis well, and I trust that under the Rudd government we will weather any future challenges, including the end of the mining boom, very well.
2) Kevin Rudd and Anthony Albanese support marriage equality. In contrast, Tony Abbott has called it a 'fashion', and even prevented his colleagues from voting for it! Tony Abbott is every bit a right wing extremist who will take away freedom, equality and opportunity when it fits the right wing agenda.
3) Tony Abbott's sister is in a committed lesbian relationship, and hopes to get married. If Abbott does not even care about his sister, will he care about the rest of the country?
4) Tony Abbott's economic policies hurt families. Workchoices and 15% GST are possibilities, and to see their impact one only needs to look at the original GST and Workchoices as implemented by the Howard government. Going even further, Tony Abbott has talked about changing the already meagre Newstart allowance so that potentially people will have to move miles away from their families to work in mines and farms when they are not even trained to do so! An Abbott government will be toxic for families. For this reason alone it is scary.
5) The 'direct action' environmental policy is not only inferior to the Rudd government's Emissions Trading Scheme, it is also very costly and will lead to either unnecessary new taxes or cuts in spending - ultimately, it is families who get hurt. All this so that the Coalition can have a 'different' policy!
6) Team Abbott have been playing dirty, in my opinion. They have released policies which do not add up in a hope to get over the line. The Murdoch-led media has also been very biased, hellbent on getting Abbott into office. One widely suspected reason is because Murdoch fears the government's National Broadband Network will affect the business of Foxtel. All this cannot be rewarded. We need to show them that this is a democracy, and WE are in charge.
7) Tony Abbott has also repeatedly singled out the Greens as an 'extremist party', probably because they wouldn't support him to be PM in the 2010 hung parliament negotiations. There are some things the Greens do that I will not agree to, but I believe the Liberals under Abbott are much more extreme than the Greens. Even under Howard they had Workchoices, something more extreme than any Green policy will ever be. And Abbott looks more of a right wing extremist than even Howard. The pot calling the kettle black is just not on.
Therefore, isn't it a clear cut choice?
Opinion: Ethnic Enclaves Good for Socities
People have long been saying that ethnic enclaves are a bad thing for society. As someone who likes controversy and debate, let me put my own alternative viewpoint into play: ethnic enclaves are good for society, and are just what society needs in this day and age.
In a global society, we need to encourage the free flow of people and resources to keep up economically. This applies to all countries. Protectionist measures are no good for the future of any country, and will be increasingly despised in this global world. A country's talent will need to be maintained and enhanced by immigration, or their industries will perish. A country also would benefit from having culturally diverse people as part of its workforce, and countries without this will not be able to keep up in the global race.
However, there is considerable fear from both natives and immigrants in every country, that their culture is going to be eroded. Nobody actually wants the world to be 'one culture'. For immigrants, life in the ethnic enclave is a way to participate in their new society, whilst not losing their cultural heritage. For natives, the fact that historically foreign cultures are kept in enclaves mean that the mainstream culture can continue its existence, whilst there are increased opportunities to make contact with different cultures, something which would have been the preserve of the rich just decades ago. It really is the best of both worlds.
A melting pot is a difficult situation for many people, as nobody wants their own culture to be melted down. However, we can all happily co-exist in a salad bowl, where nobody is melted down. Enough said.
In a global society, we need to encourage the free flow of people and resources to keep up economically. This applies to all countries. Protectionist measures are no good for the future of any country, and will be increasingly despised in this global world. A country's talent will need to be maintained and enhanced by immigration, or their industries will perish. A country also would benefit from having culturally diverse people as part of its workforce, and countries without this will not be able to keep up in the global race.
However, there is considerable fear from both natives and immigrants in every country, that their culture is going to be eroded. Nobody actually wants the world to be 'one culture'. For immigrants, life in the ethnic enclave is a way to participate in their new society, whilst not losing their cultural heritage. For natives, the fact that historically foreign cultures are kept in enclaves mean that the mainstream culture can continue its existence, whilst there are increased opportunities to make contact with different cultures, something which would have been the preserve of the rich just decades ago. It really is the best of both worlds.
A melting pot is a difficult situation for many people, as nobody wants their own culture to be melted down. However, we can all happily co-exist in a salad bowl, where nobody is melted down. Enough said.
Who Deserves to be Hanged
Who deserves to be hanged by our judicial system? This is an emotive question. And honestly, it's one that I have had trouble answering sometimes. At various times, I have thought that terrorists, people who kill others in hate crimes, and people who kill their parents should be eligible for hanging. After all, limiting hangings to these crimes would make it sufficiently rare, and a fitting punishment for extraordinarily evil acts.
However, there's a catch. Hanging is irreversible, and the judicial system is not perfect. I have done my research, and have found several cases of people found guilty of the above crimes but had their convictions overturned on appeal. If those people were hanged, that would have been a grave injustice.
Hence my conclusion: I can never support the state sponsored execution of criminals, whatever the crime. I firmly believe that there is a special place in hell for terrorists, people who kill others in hate crimes, and people who kill their parents, but it's not the place of our justice system to condemn others to death if it is imperfect.
However, there's a catch. Hanging is irreversible, and the judicial system is not perfect. I have done my research, and have found several cases of people found guilty of the above crimes but had their convictions overturned on appeal. If those people were hanged, that would have been a grave injustice.
Hence my conclusion: I can never support the state sponsored execution of criminals, whatever the crime. I firmly believe that there is a special place in hell for terrorists, people who kill others in hate crimes, and people who kill their parents, but it's not the place of our justice system to condemn others to death if it is imperfect.
Marriage Boycott: Not for Me, but Still Noble
Marriage boycott is the idea that you will not get married - or have a wedding ceremony but not legally sign papers for the government (as David Pocock did for example) - until everyone can. In previous years, in the face of widespread apathy over the issue, I supported the cause for a few years, and then deemed that it was unnecessary to support it anymore because the required public awareness has been raised. Many people are still continuing their boycott however. So having backed away from it for quite some time now, what do I think of it?
Marriage has a cultural and heritage significance for many people, me included. Maybe it's because I am partially conservative at least. That's why I wouldn't be part of a marriage boycott unless I believed it was the only way we could raise awareness for equality - that was what I believed 5 years ago, for example. Now that we have more effective strategies, I will use those strategies to contribute towards the goal of equality instead. However, some couples still want to use the marriage boycott as part of what they contribute to the equality movement. Good on them, I say. Everyone should be contributing what they feel comfortable about, even if we may end up making different contributions.
Marriage has a cultural and heritage significance for many people, me included. Maybe it's because I am partially conservative at least. That's why I wouldn't be part of a marriage boycott unless I believed it was the only way we could raise awareness for equality - that was what I believed 5 years ago, for example. Now that we have more effective strategies, I will use those strategies to contribute towards the goal of equality instead. However, some couples still want to use the marriage boycott as part of what they contribute to the equality movement. Good on them, I say. Everyone should be contributing what they feel comfortable about, even if we may end up making different contributions.
Literally Stupid?
Maroon 5 singer Adam Levine recently said "I hate this country" during a live episode of The Voice, after two of his contestants were eliminated. Nothing special here, I guess. The reaction was surprising though. There have since been calls for NBC to fire him.
Obviously we know that Adam doesn't really hate America. But apparently, some people must take everything literally. How crazy!
No wonder some people in America are now saying that everything should be taken literally. Or wait - did that come first? The dumbing down of culture has really hit hard!
Obviously we know that Adam doesn't really hate America. But apparently, some people must take everything literally. How crazy!
No wonder some people in America are now saying that everything should be taken literally. Or wait - did that come first? The dumbing down of culture has really hit hard!
The Lohans Reconcile for the Sake of Their Children
Well known couple Michael and Dina Lohan, divorced a few years ago, have reportedly decided to reconcile for the sake of their children. They recently met for dinner in Hollywood.
Isn't it great news?
I am a staunch fan of the traditional commitment for life model, and I am no fan of any divorce, as readers of my column would well know. But what happens when things don't work out? Some traditionalists would refuse to even discuss the matter - but that doesn't help. I rather prefer the philosophy of harm reduction.
Harm reduction is a philosophy we use in our healthcare system, and I think it's a philosophy we can apply in family life too, in a way. It's basically saying that, even when there is undesirable behaviour or outcomes, we can and should still do our best to reduce the harm to all parties. In the case of relationships that break down, I think the best harm reduction strategy is an agreement to try to reconcile for the many years ahead, for example agreeing to meet each other regularly in the years ahead, and to continue to have family outings. I think we should support and encourage ex-couples to do that more.
Isn't it great news?
I am a staunch fan of the traditional commitment for life model, and I am no fan of any divorce, as readers of my column would well know. But what happens when things don't work out? Some traditionalists would refuse to even discuss the matter - but that doesn't help. I rather prefer the philosophy of harm reduction.
Harm reduction is a philosophy we use in our healthcare system, and I think it's a philosophy we can apply in family life too, in a way. It's basically saying that, even when there is undesirable behaviour or outcomes, we can and should still do our best to reduce the harm to all parties. In the case of relationships that break down, I think the best harm reduction strategy is an agreement to try to reconcile for the many years ahead, for example agreeing to meet each other regularly in the years ahead, and to continue to have family outings. I think we should support and encourage ex-couples to do that more.
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 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'.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
There's no denying it: the left is in an absolutely doomer phase. Gone is the optimism for 'revolutionary change' that pervaded ...
-
The principle of equality of moral agency is central to moral libertarianism, because the need to allow every single individual their equal ...
