The Aerie
In her recent column, published in the Wall Street Journal, Harvard’s Professor Mary Ann Glendon leverages the prestige of her position for the service of some rather jejune propaganda. One would assume a Harvard Law Professor to have some analysis or insights to lend to her cause, yet she repeats in a rather straightforward manner the bland fallacies that gay rights advocates have been shooting down in flames since the ancient days of computer bulletin board systems.
In the second paragraph of her WSJ article she claims, ‘a four-judge majority has ruled in favor of special benefits for a group of relatively affluent households.’ “Special benefits” is of course a conservative codeword for rights extended to any minority group except the very wealthy, when they are called “tax breaks.” In the case of gays, these special rights include the ability to visit a family member – partner or child – at a hospital bedside, and the ability to claim to be married when applying for overseas travel visas, etc.
Her use of the term ‘relatively affluent,’ is very interesting. The Right usually condemns what it calls “class warfare” -- at least they do so when one points out that Dick Cheney earns more money in a year than most Americans will earn in their lifetimes. Apparently broadbrushing homosexuals as possibly having a little more money than their neighbors is an acceptable use of class warfare for the conservative movement.
Ms. Glendon continues to the kernel of her argument: that gay rights are “really a bid for special preferences of the type our society gives to married couples for the very good reason that most of them are raising or have raised children.” I would expect a PhD to have more discernment. The conservative myth that society somehow established a benefits package called “marriage” for those raising children always comes as a surprise to those of us, gay and straight, involved in raising children. I check my mailbox every day for the benefits enrollment kit, which has yet to arrive. The reality of marriage, at least in America, evolved out of a form of chattel ownership wherein the wife and children were considered property of the father. That it is not now what it once was attests to the fact that marriage is fluid, changing, and evolving. Conservatives decry those changes, but were it not so then Ms. Glendon might have had a very difficult time gaining her husband's or father's permission to become a Harvard Law Professor.
According to conservatives, the breakdown of civil society must soon follow upon gay marriage, and Ms. Glendon does not disappoint, “Now, in the wake of the Massachusetts case, local officials in other parts of the nation have begun to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples in defiance of state law.” But civil disobedience is an American tradition even older than the Right’s conservative myth of marriage. Ever since the Boston Tea party, courageous Americans have stood forth to point out when law and justice have parted ways. Now in San Francisco and elsewhere we see people daring to risk their careers by saying “Enough!” to the nonsense of bogus DOMA laws.
Perhaps fearing that civil collapse is too abstract for her readers, Ms. Glendon returns to the pragmatic dollar-and-sense issues that might seem likely to resonate with the Common Man. “Next to nothing has been said about what this new special preference would cost the rest of society in terms of taxes and insurance premiums.” Such arguments would sound familiar to civil-war era Representative C. L. Vallandigham of Ohio, who opposed freeing the slaves on the grounds that it would be much too expensive. Most conservatives are states-rights advocates like Vallandigham, who argued AGAINST amending the U.S. Constitution to impose Federal will upon all the States. The financial challenges brought by extending justice to all citizens present a worthy challenge: the alternative of perpetuating injustice upon some citizens for the fiscal convenience of others is not one this free nation has ever been inclined to accept. Besides, if one were to speak plainly one would have to observe that the Social Security system is broken, anyway, and will need a complete overhaul if it is to offer benefits to anybody in ten years.
Ms. Glendon does approach making a good point when she says, “How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes?” But she's only bringing up the topic in order to launch the paralyzing “if you can’t make it perfect don’t try to fix it at all” argument. I for one would be perfectly willing to entertain the notion of extending the definition of family dependency to cover disabled relatives – I’m just not willing to sacrifice equal rights for all citizens until such time as everything else in America is perfect.
Ms. Glendon returns again to her claim that marriage is only for those having children: “Shouldn't citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?” This conservative propaganda is no doubt confusing to the thousands of gay parents in this nation: apparently Harvard’s Law Professors have never heard of adoption, step-parenthood, or in-vitro fertilization. But if childrearing is so important to the definition of marriage, where then is the conservative cry to deny marriage to childless couples? Speaking as a parent, I did not have children in order to revel in the benefits of supposedly reduced taxes and increased SSI payouts. (Admittedly I did have children so that eventually I would no longer have to mow my own lawn.)
Within the Massachusetts decision, Ms. Glendon discovers “…that children do not need both a mother and a father; and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together.” The conservative myth that only Ward and June can stamp out Beaver Cleaver is not merely bigotry, but it shows just how far separated are conservatives (or at least Harvard Law Professors) from modern social reality. Modern experience tells us that what children need is NOT “a mother and a father.” What children REALLY need are loving and attentive adults to raise them. The genders and specific roles of those adults are not important. Healthy, vibrant, and creative children graduate from high school every year, having been raised by grandparents, step-parents, single parents (widowed and otherwise), and sometimes even gay parents. What the modern divorce rate has shown those of us who care to look honestly at the issue of childrearing is that love and attention matter more, much more, than demographics of the adults providing it.
Then Ms. Glendon proceeds to outline the usual slippery-slope fallacies that the Right claims will result from gay marriage. Such imaginative fiction is always entertaining. I can tell horror stories too: about a world where gay youth commit suicide due to oppression and judgementalism. A world where anti-gay rhetorical violence in the media leads to physical violence against gays in the street. Where the death of a lifelong companion results in an elderly person becoming homeless due to the inability to inherit. Where gay soldiers are free to die for their country, but not free to live in truth. A world where the worship of the mythology of marriage supplants life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unlike Ms. Gledon’s fallacious fantasies, my horror stories come out of the headlines. If society can gain the courage to embrace and endorse gay marriage, my homosexual neighbors might live a little more safely as well as a lot more freely.
Among the fantasies that she entertains, “Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.” Apparently this Harvard Jurist has so little faith, in both her fellow man and the protections offered by founding principles of this nation, that she would stain the U.S. Constitution with the offal of her fear. I don’t think any person with so little faith in the protections offered by the First Amendment should be teaching impressionable youth regarding the subject of Constitutional law.
She continues, “Many Americans are rightly alarmed that … four judges in one state took it upon themselves to make the kind of decision that our Constitution says belongs to us, the people.” We’ve all grown used to this kind of inflammatory rhetoric coming from politicians, but for a jurist to show such blatant professional disregard for her colleagues is scandalous. The practice of repeating whatever propaganda is churned out by Right-wing think-tanks has gone too far when a Harvard Professor of Law can make such disrespectful utterances without examining them for both reasonableness and professional propriety. The judges have rendered a decision, presumably after due and proper consideration, and a Harvard Professor of Law ought to recognize and respect those efforts, even if she disagrees with the conclusion. Instead she merely parrots the “judicial activism” accusations invented by conservative D.C. pitchmen. How professionally insulting that is to her colleagues on the bench.
Having spent the last few paragraphs indulging in increasingly hysterical rhetoric, Ms. Glendon attempts to salvage a nut of reasonability at the end, “Whether one is for, against or undecided about same-sex marriage, a decision this important ought to be made in the ordinary democratic way … as President Bush stated, "in a manner worthy of our country -- without bitterness or anger."” Anyone who does more than skim the first and last paragraphs of her article will recognize that Ms. Glendon’s concern is not truly for the preservation of marriage, the protection of children, or the fiscal savings to be garnered by continuing to deny equality to those born homosexual. Ms. Glendon has provided ample evidence that she is merely another mouthpiece of the conservative propaganda machine, lending the proud name of Harvard to the service of the continued oppression of her fellow citizens. Harvard might want to examine whether such an association is in its best interests.
The Wall Street Journal article closes by informing us that Ms. Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard. She might do well to review some of the philosophies of her predecessor:
‘The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right’ –Learned Hand
Well, that was a very nice weekend... right up until, literally, the last moment!
Lanesboro is a town located in a tiny valley surrounded by bluffs, with only a few routes into town. On the edge of Minnesota's Amish country, Lanesboro made a name for itself early in the 80's by purchasing all the unused rail right-of-way in the area, and turning them into biking and hiking paths. Now it's a fairly successful tourist area, which is quite an accomplishment for a place without other distinguishing characteristics. I'm sure there are a few families which have not had to move during the recession because the local tourist trade was stronger than other areas of rural Minnesota.
The last time Theresa and I visited Scanlon house was 16 years ago, when we were newly engaged and it had only been in business a few years. Now it's over 20 years old.
Our directions took us through Preston, but when I saw a sign saying "Lanesboro" pointing west out of the town of Harmony, MN, I figured to take a shortcut.
It was a shortcut, but oh my was it twisty! By this time in our trip the sun had set, so I let another car pass me and then followed it through the impenetrable darkness. Up hills, round curves, over bluffs, it was a crazy rollercoaster ride over snow-slicked country roads, following a local whose knowledge of the route encouraged him to drive a lot faster than I cared to.
Finally we rounded a curve and plunged past a rocky bluff and saw the lights of town ahead of us.
We got to the Scanlon House a little late but arrived in good spirits to find the Safari Room waiting for us, decorated in a Victorian Safari theme. Each of the two nights that we were there we received a treat platter, featuring a large bottle of
champaigne, fruits, and candies. The room included a jacuzzi, afireplace, and a bed that was easily four feet high.
We went out to get dinner and discovered that Lanesboro was ready for us: every restaurant had the same deal: Valentine's Day Special Menu, $29.95 per person. Good-naturedly resigned to this wholly noncapitalistic price-fixing scheme, we ate at the Village Inn. It was okay without being fantastic.
After dinner, well, what can I say? A long, leisurely bath in the candlelit jacuzzi, Loreena McKennitt playing on the
CD player... and the camera pans over to the faux fireplace and discreetly fades to black.
The next day began with the B&B five-course breakfast in front of the fireplace in the Victorian-style dining room. The amazing thing about this place is that the proprietress, Kirstin, was running everything herself. She had five or six couples both the nights that we were there, yet she pulled off the breakfasts with seeming ease. I admired her preparation and order: before retiring for the evening, everything was in place for the next day's breakfast.
Breakfast started with fruit smuggled into Minnesota on her return from a trip to Florida, fresh strawberries and blueberries in February are quite a treat. The entree was something she called a quieffle (key-FLAY), half quiche, half souffle, all delicious. The finish was a kind of fruit bar, prepared sugar free with the use of aspartame or something, it didn't quite work for me. The rest was great.
Then Theresa and I piled into the van in search of Amish! We just drove around southern Minnesota (and for a few exciting miles, northern Iowa!, ooh, aaah), taking gravel back roads in search of authentic Amish farmers. Our search was successful: there they were, working outdoors in short-sleeved shirts in 15-degree weather, black hats, black vests, long white beards. They uniformly waved to us as we went by. We waved back. I resisted the urge to take a photo, since I know the Amish don't like that.
It was lovely, driving all over the place, talking about Real Live Things, with noplace to go and nothing to do, seeing wild turkeys, Amish farmers, and closed tourist-cave entrances. (Why would you close a cave in the winter, when it's always the same weather underground? I'd think cave tours would be one of the few things to continue all year.)
For dinner we ate not at the expensive tourist traps, but at thelocal greasy spoon, the Chat'n'Chew. It was a classic, with dingy lineoleum floors, twisty hallways between new and old portions of the restaurant, bored
teenaged waitress serving tepid tea, and blue-haired local gossips huddled in a back booth. A customer helped himself to some boxed wine from a cooler and later reminded the waitress to put it on his bill.
During the meal a man appeared from the kitchens: imagine Michael Moore, but more unkempt looking. He was our cook. Approaching the booth behind us, he spoke to his local acquaintances.
"What'cha makin' today?"
"Welp, I'm back there trying to build a Chinese barbeque sauce with a reduction of rosemary in white wine, then I add some grated fresh ginger and..."
Theresa's fish was nice, and a very generous portion. I had a rather anonymous hamburger. I enjoyed the atmosphere more than the mock-cheer of the prior evening's tourist trap.
Returning to our room we shared chocolates and
champaigne from the evening's tray, and played Scrabble during Saturday Night Live (Theresa won. I married her because she can beat me at Scrabble.)
When we woke up this morning Theresa had a small headache, from the champaigne we thought, which cleared up after a couple of aspirin. At breakfast we sat across from... a young couple who had just gotten engaged. Watching our counterparts from 16 years ago was very interesting, but I resisted bestowing any unrequested wisdom upon them. Apparently he's finishing residency in Florida while she's finishing hers at the Rochester Minnesota Mayo clinic, so this was their first morning together in several months, and they were practically glowing.
Then we went back to our room where we talked and read and eventually took a nap before packing. Finally it was time to go.
I prevailed upon Theresa to let me call my friend Carrie -- with whom I had become reacquainted after 24 years when we met at Steve's funeral. Carrie was delighted to hear we were passing through, and eagerly invited us to visit.
We arrived at Carrie's place, and had a very nice time. She and her husband Jeff are childless by choice, and have recently built a very cozy, very unique home just outside of Rochester. They're both tall (she's 5' 8", he's over 6'), so everything is up high: for example, in their kitchen the dishwasher has a deep drawer built under it.
They steamed up some shrimp which they brought back from Florida this week, and Theresa and Carrie made up a shrimp sauce. After shrimp and wine we had some pie.
After pie it was getting pretty late, so we wrapped up and got ready to leave.
As I went to use the bathroom beside the front door, Theresa
said, "Hurry up, I'm not feeling good." Thinking that her headache had returned, I finished up quickly, we said our goodbyes, and then Theresa stepped out the front door.
And promptly threw up.
She then turned back into the house, dashed into the bathroom, and, well, the rest doesn't bear description.
TURNS OUT that she'd been growing increasingly unwell the whole time we were there. But she thought the hot flashes were from the woodburning stove, that the headache was just a headache, and finally that the nausea was just from the heat and the wine. She thought she was going to be okay, however, until the cold air hit her, and she was nearly as surprised as everyone else at what happened.
Well, if it were possible to DIE of mortification we'd both have been dead right there. We're certain that Carrie and Jeff were perfectly understanding and everything, but we're still mortified anyway.
The ride home was hellish, with frequent very unpleasant stops. We finally got home and got Theresa cleaned up and installed under a blanket on the couch. She clearly had picked up a bug from someone during our stay and the timing was simply bad. She's feeling better already, though.
So the weekend was 99.99% perfect -- and what can you do? If it's understandable for then-President George Bush to hurl into the lap of the Japanese Prime Minister, I guess it's gotta be okay to woof cookies in somebody's new bathroom. Of course, I'm still mortified about it.
But aside from that, a very wonderful weekend.
Okay, I admit it.
I haven't been writing this thing.
I know, I know, it's not as if my sole reader focuses his or her day upon whether or not I make blog entries. But I'm disappointed in myself because, of course, one of my New Year's Resolutions was to make more entries.
My only excuse is... it's been a tough couple of weeks. Okay, fine, it's been a tough month.
There are changes afoot -- changes about which I cannot yet speak. No, nobody's sick and the marriage is fine, thanks. Other stuff is changing, and I'm just not able to talk about it yet.
But it's depressing and upsetting and I've just had to work it through. And since I can't talk about it yet, I've had to stew on it alone. I guess I'm not one of those who can post a blog about tiny topic A when huge topic B is hanging over my head like an elephant up a tree.
But for this weekend, a break. We're taking money we can't afford and the wife and I are getting away for a weekend -- yes, TWO entire nights -- without the kids. Hopefully I can stop thinking about the elephant in the tree long enough to decompress and relax. Possibly the wife and I will be able to have Meaningful Conversations that may help ease my troubled brow.
Mary and Tam are going to be watching the kids: Mary because she's a very wonderful and nice person to whom I once gave an old laptop I was no longer using, and Tam because she's a very wonderful and nice person whose computer I have kept operational on and off for the past couple of years (I particularly liked the time that she and Paul tried to remove the motherboard from the bottom of the computer...)
And yes, I'm aware that was all one sentence, ok?
They shouldn't have TOO much trouble -- Mary's a mom of teens, first off, so she'll know how to handle them. And the twins and our youngest are fairly easy to manage, I hope. Tam may have a harder time because she won't have the battlefield experience of a hardened mom, but she'll probably be fine. If not, well, we'll be arriving home after her shift and we can untie her and reprimand the children.
So, with a small gap opening in the dark cloud of February, I bid you adieu for two days. Hopefully when I return some of the storminess of life will have subsided and the path ahead be made clear...