Equality and the Gay Marriage Issue

I have wonderful parents.  They are intelligent, caring, and well-informed people who instilled in me several moral principles for which I am eternally grateful.  It has been such an adulthood time-saver to not have to struggle with certain basics of ethical behavior, such as supporting equality and justice for all humans, regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation.  

To me, racism seems nothing short of insane, and as I reflect on Americans’ present-day shame of past oppression of racial minorities, I wonder if, in sixty years, we will have similar feelings of regret regarding our government’s current treatment of the gay and lesbian community.  I find it stunning that only a hand full of American states have legalized same-sex unions, meaning that the majority of our nation denies committed gay and lesbian couples legal advantages that are taken for granted by married heterosexuals.  These benefits range from the practical (ability to file taxes jointly) to the heart-wrenching (right to make emergency medical decisions for one’s partner).  The oft-used argument that the legalization of gay marriage would be corrosive to the American marital institution is laughable considering the painfully obvious fact that straight people are doing an excellent job of mucking it up all by themselves.  Americans appear to have an exceedingly cavalier view of marital commitment, as evidenced by the fifty percent divorce rate, and the popularizing of terms like “starter marriage.”  And to those who consider homosexuality a perversion, and therefore not fit for the hallowed halls of wedlock, I pose this question: as part of the marriage license process, should we institute an  interrogation of opposite gender couples regarding the intimate details of their sex lives to assure that they are not engaging in one (or more) of the plethora of kinky practices enjoyed by a surprising number of straight folks? 

Politics gets a Facelift: Physical Image and Modern American Government

Let’s face it: these days (despite all of our supposed progress) there is profound pressure on women to look not merely beautiful, but inhumanly flawless.  I blame the media who, with its relatively recent acquisition of photo tweaking technology, has used a heavy hand in airbrushing already good-looking female celebrities into impossible specimens of slender, ageless pulchritude.  Add to this an abundance of glossy magazines sporting upgraded images of female stars on their covers while prominently displayed at every grocery store in America, and you have an entire population of women who, by simply operating in contemporary American culture, are suggestively bullied into being looks obsessed. 

In her October 14, 2010 submission to the Huffington Post, Peggy Drexler analyzes (most likely for an audience of liberal women) the political implications of American preoccupation with female beauty by using the example of recently emerged candidate for the Delaware Senate, and bona fide cutie, Christine O'Donnell.  Drexler observes a new power wielded by beauty in politics that may be trumping job appropriateness, and cites O'Donnell as symptomatic of this situation.  Drexler drives home her point by enumerating a few of O’Donnell’s drawbacks such as her unclear educational history and her bizarre opposition to the practice of masturbation, and then postulates that if O’Donnell were bereft of her physical endowments, she might also be without a political career.  Drexler strengthens her position by mentioning that it is not as though you can’t combine intelligence and competence with good looks, but in light of O’Donnell’s glaring flaws that may render her unsuitable for political office, wonders if her presence on the national political forum is due only to her good looks, presented to an American public, conveniently primed to unquestioningly accept the beautiful over the qualified.    

Proposition 19 and the Marijuana Debate

It’s no secret that the vast majority of Americans between the ages of twenty and sixty-five have, at the very least, tried marijuana once.  There are also many habitual partakers of weed who assert that, despite cannabis'  illegality and resultant stigma, it does not possess the threat to one’s health that, say, alcohol does, which is perfectly legal and widely available.  No one has ever perished from marijuana poisoning, or a marijuana overdose its defenders will argue.  In fact, there has been a recent surge in evidence that pot has medicinal properties that assist people in relieving the symptoms of such varying diseases as cancer, aids and epilepsy.  These findings about the potential health benefits of pot are partially responsible for the passing of legislation authorizing the distribution and consumption of marijuana for medical purposes in some North American states, including California.  Now, Californians are set to decide if they want to extend the legalization of marijuana beyond health care and into the realm of “personal use” when they vote on Proposition 19, or the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, this coming November.

In his September 29^th, 2010 opinion piece, Reefer Gladness, Timothy Egan presents a persuasive argument in favor of Proposition 19 and the legalization of marijuana in general.  As made evident by his referencing of “The Big Lebowski,” the film which introduced one of the world’s most famous stoners, Egan is writing for an audience of pop culture savvy individuals who are familiar with the movie as well as the cultural milieu surrounding marijuana.  Egan bolsters his pro-legalization-of-marijuana stance by alluding to the fact that pot is already so widespread that making it lawful would not threaten our current societal foundations.  He also compares the restriction of marijuana to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s, pointing out that, far from decreasing the use of the respective substances, each brought about a substantial increase in violent crime by gangsters and (in the case of marijuana) drug cartels.  Perhaps the most compelling argument that Egan makes, however, is the fact that the most vigorous opponents of Proposition 19 are those, such as medical marijuana dispensaries and alcohol companies, who stand to lose their monopoly of the drug market, and therefore, a lot of money.  Egan answers Governor Schwarzenegger’s comment that the passing of Proposition 19 would “make California a laughing stock” with the zinger:  “He should know. Schwarzenegger runs a state that is bankrupt, broken and ungovernable. God forbid he should let common sense into California.”  Touché.