The Sanctity of Marriage?

The recent defeat on issues relating to gay marriage and adoption (in California, Florida, Arkansas) has me thinking of Bush’s longtime backing for a Constitutional amendment to ban marriage for same-sex couples.

Bush & his supporters have repeatedly stated, “We need to preserve the sanctity of marriage.” These politicians, church leaders and proponents of family values, are fearful that what Bush refers to as the “most enduring” of all institutions in the civilized world will crumble if the invitation to the contract is extended to two men or two women.

U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) led the call a few years ago to ban gay marriage by proposing an amendment to the Constitution: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Perhaps if Rep. Musgrave is so concerned about safeguarding the inviolability of marriage, she should consider adding text that bans separation or divorce once a marriage ceremony takes place. Want to preserve the sanctity of marriage? Then enforce the vows that are exchanged in the majority of marriage ceremonies in the United States: they include “till death do us part” and a pledge to stay together “in sickness and in health.”

Most marriage ceremonies contain the symbolic exchange of rings. The wedding band dates back to ancient Rome; the round ring represents eternity. Historians tell us it was thought that a vein ran from the ring finger of the left hand directly to the heart. The ring symbolizes that the marriage should last forever.

The crude divorce statistic in this country stands at 50%. For every 2.2 million people that are married, 1.1 million undergo divorce. Divorce statistics are so high and so expected that they are no longer compiled in this country in any scientific manner. Yet, there is a multi-billion dollar wedding industry out there that offers ‘celebrity-for-a-day’ status to men and women who undertake what is supposed to be a lifelong commitment.

First they register, and then they hire the hall, book the caterer, the band, the costumes, the video and the all-important rings. For many couples, the wedding seems much more important than the marriage.

At a time when gays have entered mainstream society in the U.S.--thanks to the legacy of “Will & Grace”, openly gay Ellen, and using same-sex kisses between prime time television stars as a sweeps week agenda--it is wrong to completely silence the gay marriage debate with a Constitutional amendment (or state-by-state slaughter on the part of the Christian Right who fuels their hate-filled rants and chants with concern for “family values”).

According to Representative Musgrave, a man and a woman can enter into the sanctity of marriage--as did Britney Spears for 55 hours-- but same-sex couples that have been in a committed and loving relationship for years can’t consider the option.

Many gay couples that have adopted unwanted children from heterosexual unions exhibit a higher degree of family values than the biological parents. And now that act of compassion on the part of loving and stable gay partners is being taken away.

As for legal partnerships and agreements of civil unions? These documents have been challenged by family members in the event of a death, and they don’t speak to the issue of the legalities of inheriting pensions and other rights. Many gay people fear even these diminished marriage substitutes will be whittled away by Constitutional amendments.

Perhaps if same-sex marriage is not permitted in the United States, then gays who are denied rights should not have to pay the same percentage of taxes as other Americans. Doesn’t the Constitution also pledge “no taxation without representation?” And the Declaration of Independence certainly promises “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” as well as a separation between church and state.

The only criteria for marriage should be whether or not two consenting adults are committed to an enduring union.

Put Compassion Into The Curriculum

While commuting home the other night, a colleague of mine got into a discussion with his seatmate about Howard Dean. The commuter told my co-worker, “I would never have voted for Howard Dean. One simple reason: he’s a doctor. Have you ever known a doctor to really listen to a patient? To really care about what a patient says?”

Just about everyone in the United States has faced—or knows someone who has faced—the devastation of a catastrophic illness. With it comes the added burden, almost as debilitating, of dealing with ‘healthcare’ bureaucracy.

What if a doctor understood that patients need an advocate? What if a doctor could relate to the difficult ordeal of trying to get well.

A proposal: a requirement during the final year of medical school should be to live with a family or individual that is facing a medical death sentence. The med student should be required to take on the role of advocate for the patient. The future doctor would be the individual assigned to dealing with the primary care doctor, specialists, labs, hospitals and insurance companies.

Louis XIV: Legislate Manners?

There has been a lot said during the past decade about the “lack of civility” and the decrease in the institution of manners in the U.S., but the sad truth is, we are witnessing something much more profound than a forgotten “thank you” or failure to say “excuse me.”

Our lack of concern for our neighbors indicates an easy willingness to abandon a fundamental code: manners are simply a sign of respect. The decay of care and concern in our culture is erupting into a “soul sickness.”

Disrespect for others is becoming an American way of life. The Social Vigilante who steps in to voice a protest or make a comment is ragefully told to “mind your own #%*5>% business.”

Louis XIV used etiquette to keep control & maintain peace at Versailles. The "Iron Etiquette" of Louis XIV has been made to seem absurd--yet, Louis created the discipline of manners in order for an assembly of 3,000 to 5,000 people to exist harmoniously at Versailles.

Is it time to Legislate Manners and issue Social Demerits?

Norway As Social Vigilante

Norway joins fight to save Amazon

Cattle ranching is blamed for up to 70% of current Amazon deforestation

Norway has pledged $1bn (£500m) to a new international fund to help Brazil protect the Amazon rainforest.

The donation is the first to the fund which Brazil hopes will raise $21bn to protect Amazon nature reserves.

Norway's prime minister said the project was important in the fight to reduce global warming.

Brazil is one of the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters, with three-quarters of its total coming from the burning of trees in the Amazon.

The money will be released over seven years to promote alternatives to forest-clearing for people living in the Amazon, and support conservation and sustainable development.

The Amazon rainforest Largest continuous tropical forest Shared by nine countries 65% Brazilian territory Covers 6.6m sq km in total Pop: 30m - 23.5m are in Brazil

Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg said: "Efforts against deforestation may give us the largest, quickest and cheapest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

"Brazilian efforts against deforestation are therefore of vital importance if we shall succeed in our campaign against global warming," he added.

The Brazilian government wants to raise $21bn through foreign donors by 2021, although President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva has insisted that the Amazon's preservation is Brazil's responsibility.

He welcomed Norway's pledge, saying: "The day that every developed country has the same attitude as Norway, we'll certainly begin to trust that global warming can be diminished."

Japan, Sweden, Germany, South Korea and Switzerland are said to be considering donating to the fund, which was launched last month.

Kitty Genovese: A Nation of Bystanders?

Perhaps nothing begs for the examination of the Social Vigilante concept as much as the murder of Kitty Genovese on the evening of March 13, 1964 in Kew Gardens, Queens. The brutal attack lasted more than 30 minutes and the police confirmed that 38 people were witness to this horrific event from their apartment windows yet not one of them responded to the victim's screams and pleas for help by intervening or simply calling the police.

Thirty years after the Kitty Genovese incident, Caroline Eisenberg, a 23 year old student, died after bleeding for six hours on her rooftop at 106th Street and West End Avenue. Police investigators compared the murder to the Genovese killing. Two social psychologists, Bibb Latane of Columbia University and John Darley of NYU, attempted to develop a theory as to why no one helped Kitty Genovese. They came up with The Bystander Effect: the individual is less likely to provide help in the presence of other bystanders.

An I-Me-Mine Credo, Greed, Indifference to Cruelty in our world fuels the 'Ugly American' image around the globe.

Is the U.S.--"the leader of the Free World"--becoming a nation of bystanders?