Breasts, Marriages (Straight And Gay) And Politics

February 26th, 2004

Goodness gracious, the sky is falling. Some Americans worry about Iraq, terrorism, the economy and immigration and you name it being in terrible shape, but our main concern these days seems to be Janet Jackson's breast. And, alas poor Joel, I missed it. I was in Los Angeles visiting a friend and watched the Superbowl's first half, but then left to go back to my daughter's house to play with my grandchildren. And ever since, when they show the clip on tv, they blur the image. Rats.

To somewhat more than half of the population, the two second view of a bare breast can hardly be exciting at all. After all, they can examine themselves in a mirror if need be. To the minority half (is that an oxymoron?), a bare female breast may be exciting but for the most part two seconds doesn't do much, especially for those who have wives, girlfriends or art collections. No matter how comely Ms Jackson's right breast may be, she probably doesn't stack up against a Titian or Rubens.

Of course, there is the matter of taste. Far be it for me to urge that women run around bare breasted at football games. At the very least, it would take away from the action on the field, although, come to think about it, those cheer leaders shaking their boobs and derrieres are quite distracting. But no matter, Ms Jackson should not have allowed herself to be exposed.

The question then remains, why have our politicians fallen all over themselves to insure that no breast will make even a brief appearance on tv ever again? Considerable man hours (pun intended) have been put into this cause by our national legislators. The public press is giving the event more coverage than the Superbowl itself. And in the end, the FCC will probably have the power to levy larger fines than ever on the miscreants. Thus, our legislators will have protected us from evil doers like Ms Jackson. Thank you, guys. I am much relieved.

On a somewhat parallel legislative course is the prim George W. Bush's idea to have the government spend something over a billion dollars to promote marriage in this country. The idea is to encourage stable unions so as to provide sustenance to children and our souls not to mention cutting down on hanky panky.

I wouldn't worry too much about the cost of the project. Given the state of our present deficit under Bush's inspired leadership, another billion dollars really doesn't matter. Yet it might be well to remember the late Republican Senator Everett Dirkson's saying a generation ago that a billion here and a billion there sooner or later adds up to real money. No, what bothers me is George's notion of having the government persuade us that marriage is necessarily a good thing. I mean to make that official government policy seems peculiar.

We have at last come around to the stage where most of us have the choice to marry or not marry, or to stay married or divorce as we prefer. This to my mind is a good thing. To give you an idea of where I am coming from, I am certainly happy in my present marriage but I confess that between my wife and me we have gotten rid of three previous spouses. Without disparaging any of them (they are all still friends), one no longer is bound to stay with a husband who beats you or a wife who frenches your bed. In short, the crime of marriage is no longer punished by a life long sentence without the possibility of pardon. And children living with parents who abuse or can't stand each other are a lot better off living with each one serially.

If George is reelected, kiss the billion goodbye. Our politicians will fall all over themselves praising an institution which probably more than half of them customarily violate in private. It is certainly sound political practice to stand on the side of morality rather than deal with the difficult issues of the day.

Then there is the matter of gay marriages or civil unions or whatever. As I write, George is contemplating his navel over whether to support a constitutional ban on gay marriages or not. Is this part of the campaign to promote stable relationships or what?

As I have pointed out before, in English common law marriage was always a civil institution, not a religious one. People could marry by simply agreeing to be married, hence the famous “common law marriage.” While religious marriages were certainly encouraged by the Church of England and other religious groups, no great stigma was attached to those who married without benefit of clergy.

Under English law, which we inherited, marriage created a number of civil rights and obligations. In our time, chief among these is the obligation of mutual support, inheritance rights and, in some states, community property. While it is true that a legislature might permit these rights to be assumed by so-called civil unions, for the life of me I don't understand why we are arguing over a word, especially if the word “marriage” will enhance the happiness of a large portion of our population. If gays want to be married, we should do nothing but applaud and wish them well (and send presents).

There have been three great civil rights strains in American history. One was the fight to free the slaves and then to provide their progeny with the civil rights which they are entitled to as human beings. All men are created equal, and all that. Another was the fight first to give women the right to vote and then to make them equal in the eyes of the law. The third is the fight for gay rights. Happily the first two have been won, although the results are by no means perfect and still need to be improved. The last big fight is for equal justice for gays. Sexual orientation cannot have any bearing on one's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Homosexuality is a fact of nature. It exists among many non human species as well as mankind. It is not an evil choice that a person makes any more than heterosexuality. If you wish to believe that marriage is a divine state, so be it, but why deny that state to some of God's human creatures?

Once again, our legislatures waste their time on issues like this because they are, they think, appealing to voters although not in the long run important to either the defense of our country, or economic welfare or a step toward solving the world's problems. Hopefully, those all flash and no substance guys will disappear at the polls.