![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Good night, and good luck.
(This was the original title of this post. That changed, so this became a subtitle, instead.)
This evening we watched the 2005 film, Good night, and good luck. This film, set in 1953, looks at CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow's taking on Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
Since this was made in 2005, I can only assume that its creators were deliberately addressing our current political situation. Certainly, watching it, I was struck, over and over again, by its relevance. This is an extraordinary film and I highly recommend that if you haven't seen it, you should do so. For that matter, even if you have seen it, watch it again.
As an interesting side note, Karl commented during the film that Keith Olbermann seems to base some of his television persona on Murrow. I was amused that when we finished the film, it was just in time for Countdown with Keith Olbermann to start.
The Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
Karl just came in to tell me that Larry Craig and David Vitter are among the sponsors who have introduced a proposed amendment to the US constitution defining marriage as being valid only between a man and a woman. The absolute arrogant hypocrisy and gall that would lead these two to sponsor such a bill, not to mention the unbelievable willingness of the other sponsors to be associated with these two in this context, is such that I simply don't even get it. Of course, I've never quite understood how gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage, either. That whole argument just flies right past me and, frankly, I think it does so because there is absolutely no logical underpinning to it. After all, it's not as if a marriage between two people of the same sex is going to interfere with my marriage. How could it?
It seems only logical to me that as a society we should be supporting stable relationships, regardless of the sex of the participants. However, I think there's also a church and state issue that this entire controversy hinges on, and which no one seems to actually want to talk about. That's the role of the state in marriage. I say this because it seems to me that the arguments against gay marriage almost always wind up hinging on religious views and I've been very disturbed by the ways in which our country is willing to ignore the constitution when it comes to the separation of church and state.
Now, as someone who has been married but not in a church, perhaps this is a bit strange for me to say, but do we really need the state to perform marriages, or is that something better left to churches? I'm asking, because it seems to me that the role of the state might be better addressed by moving entirely to a system in which the state only issues civil union licenses. In such a system, civil unions would provide the same legal protections and sanctions currently afforded by marriage, but would avoid the religious overtones and anyone wanting to actually be married just has to find a church that agrees to the arrangement. Marriages performed by a church, minister, or other legally sanctioned marriage practitioner, would automatically be recognized by the state and either the state would also issue a civil union license to the couple, or the marriage would be given the same legal status as a civil union. This would entirely leave the "sacrament" aspect of marriage entirely up to the church and the individuals involved.
Okay. I'll get down off my soapbox, now. I know that what I've just written might seem really out there to some people and I hope I haven't offended anyone. I just don't see the point in making rules that hurt people (and right now I think the current rules do), and I really dislike the hypocrisy of Craig and Vitter in this situation.
(This was the original title of this post. That changed, so this became a subtitle, instead.)
This evening we watched the 2005 film, Good night, and good luck. This film, set in 1953, looks at CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow's taking on Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
Since this was made in 2005, I can only assume that its creators were deliberately addressing our current political situation. Certainly, watching it, I was struck, over and over again, by its relevance. This is an extraordinary film and I highly recommend that if you haven't seen it, you should do so. For that matter, even if you have seen it, watch it again.
As an interesting side note, Karl commented during the film that Keith Olbermann seems to base some of his television persona on Murrow. I was amused that when we finished the film, it was just in time for Countdown with Keith Olbermann to start.
The Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
Karl just came in to tell me that Larry Craig and David Vitter are among the sponsors who have introduced a proposed amendment to the US constitution defining marriage as being valid only between a man and a woman. The absolute arrogant hypocrisy and gall that would lead these two to sponsor such a bill, not to mention the unbelievable willingness of the other sponsors to be associated with these two in this context, is such that I simply don't even get it. Of course, I've never quite understood how gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage, either. That whole argument just flies right past me and, frankly, I think it does so because there is absolutely no logical underpinning to it. After all, it's not as if a marriage between two people of the same sex is going to interfere with my marriage. How could it?
It seems only logical to me that as a society we should be supporting stable relationships, regardless of the sex of the participants. However, I think there's also a church and state issue that this entire controversy hinges on, and which no one seems to actually want to talk about. That's the role of the state in marriage. I say this because it seems to me that the arguments against gay marriage almost always wind up hinging on religious views and I've been very disturbed by the ways in which our country is willing to ignore the constitution when it comes to the separation of church and state.
Now, as someone who has been married but not in a church, perhaps this is a bit strange for me to say, but do we really need the state to perform marriages, or is that something better left to churches? I'm asking, because it seems to me that the role of the state might be better addressed by moving entirely to a system in which the state only issues civil union licenses. In such a system, civil unions would provide the same legal protections and sanctions currently afforded by marriage, but would avoid the religious overtones and anyone wanting to actually be married just has to find a church that agrees to the arrangement. Marriages performed by a church, minister, or other legally sanctioned marriage practitioner, would automatically be recognized by the state and either the state would also issue a civil union license to the couple, or the marriage would be given the same legal status as a civil union. This would entirely leave the "sacrament" aspect of marriage entirely up to the church and the individuals involved.
Okay. I'll get down off my soapbox, now. I know that what I've just written might seem really out there to some people and I hope I haven't offended anyone. I just don't see the point in making rules that hurt people (and right now I think the current rules do), and I really dislike the hypocrisy of Craig and Vitter in this situation.
