Gay Marriage

The wonderful Coffee Bean is preparing her thoughts on today's hottest topic, Gay Marriage (tomorrow's hottest topic will be French Onion Soup.)


I'd certainly head over and see what her blogging pals (myself included) have to say about it.

In the mean time, I have my own question:

Coming from Europe, and having lived in Paris and even having paid to go and see Brokeback Mountain (which was stunning for the scenery, a little bit squirmworthy for the sodomy) I really have no problems with gay people, gay marriage or whatever.

As long as it's behind closed doors between two consenting adults, I don't think anybody has the right to cast judgement. The decision to ban gay marriage in California is, as far as I'm concerned, just retarded.

But apparently, I'm (just barely) in the minority. So I ask this: What IS the problem with two consenting adults entering into a legally binding, monogamous relationship with all the rights and responsibilities of traditional marriage?

What's wrong with gay people getting married?

And I don't just want the tired old: "Oh, it undermines the sanctity of marriage" unless you're going to back it up with facts and examples or at least your thought process for saying that. The last person who made that claim admitted they were from a fatherless home themselves.

I mean, 'traditional marriage' is as dead as disco. Two out of three marriages ends in divorce anyway. It's all a farce unless you're in it for the long haul, straight OR gay. It's my fifth wedding anniversary tomorrow and, as far as I know, we're on our way to beating the odds.

So please, tell me: "What is wrong with gay marriage?" and, to channel my high school history teacher, Mr Tosh, please let's see the thought process behind why you feel that way.

There will be no poo-pooing, no scorn, no insults and no judgement from me. Just open minded curiosity. To my mind, it's all outlined in the Declaration of Independence:

"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court of the United States decision that allowed interracial marriage, it was declared:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

If you disagree with that, why?

Boris Johnson - Up in Smoke?

The likeable Boris Johnson, who is running against 'Red' Ken Livingston for the position of Mayor of London, is getting a lot of flak for his outspoken comments about the UK's recently adopted smoking ban.

Johnson believes that local authorities should have the right to opt-out of Britain's blanket ban on smoking in public places - but many people feel this is merely because his campaign received a much-needed cash injection from the Tobacco Association last year.

Whether or not that's true, Johnson's raised a very valid point. In a free country, isn't there something fundamentally wrong about our Nanny government telling us where and when people can light up?

I'm no fan of smoking. I don't enjoy going to a club or restaurant and coming back reeking of tobacco. However, I am a fan of free choice and I think the smoking ban is the thin edge of a wedge which will quickly see drinking, eating fatty foods and even being a coach potato 'banned' in the interests of 'public wellness.'

It's happening in America right now. Even though the Americans are generally a little more protective of their personal liberties, New York city followed up a blanket ban on smoking with a ban on foods containing trans fat. What's the next target in the health fascist's sights?

I'm personally an advocate of that most important of all human liberties - personal responsibility. We should be allowed to make our own decisions about these things.

Smoking causes cancer. Drinking effects the liver. Eating trans fat clogs the arteries. We all know the risks involved in enjoying our 'vices' and if that's the case, what's to stop us from making an informed decision to continue indulging ourselves?

As for the ban on smoking - I'm entirely behind Boris Johnson. I believe there should be a general smoking ban across the country, but certain pubs and bars should be allowed to appeal to their local authority and 'opt out' of it if they want to.

It would work, even if you're not a smoker. In a street with five pubs and bars, punters would have four smoke-free alternatives should one of the bars decide to allow smoking.

I think it should be done on a case-by-case basis and I'm even open to certain stipulations (like only bars or clubs that don't serve food opting out of the smoking ban.)

You don't have to be a fan of smoking to support this idea. As I mentioned earlier - smoking is just the first (and biggest) target on the Nanny State's list. Next will come drinking, fatty foods and idleness. They won't stop until the entire nation is vacuum sealed, homogenized and sterile.

The battle for our personal freedom begins here.

Abortion shouldn't be a political issue...

Over on CK's blog, he's gearing up for a month-long debate on an issue about which he feels very strongly. Abortion.

Totally unlike England, where the topic is wisely avoided, American politicians stake their political territory with their attitudes towards abortion.

No other social topic polorises the American people. CK himself admits that Democratic "financial and social policies would fly with most of the Christian right, but their stance on abortion forces them to vote predominately Republican."

It's a very thorny topic - so I thought I'd throw my two cents in.

When it comes to abortion, I have two positions.

1. I do think abortion is wrong.
2. I don't think abortion should be banned.

These two statements might seem to be contradictory, but they're not. You don't have to agree with or condone abortion to realise that it's a problem that won't be solved by some utterly ill-considered blanket ban.

A federal ban on abortion - which is what I'd imagine hard core conservatives like CK are calling for - is an utterly unrealistic, unconstitutional and downright stupid idea. And I'll tell you why.

Why Abortion is Wrong

When it comes to the morality of abortion, CK and I are on the same page.

It's really quite simple. When sperm and egg combine and create a viable zygote, a woman is considered 'pregnant.' That zygote soon becomes an embryo, a multicellular diploid eukaryote, which ideally imbeds itself in the endometrial lining of a woman's uterus.

Unless something's wrong with it (25% of all pregnancies end before 13 weeks) or an accident happens, that bundle of cells will grow into a fetus and then be born as a baby. To all intents and purposes, new life begins at the moment of conception.

An abortion terminates that pregnancy - and snuffs out that potential new life before it even has a chance to begin. While the pro-choice advocates try to shuffle around the cold hard reality of it, it's really as simple as that. An abortion stops a beating heart.

Advances in science mean a premature baby can be kept alive earlier and earlier now. On the other end of the spectrum, scientists can create embryos and grow them in test tubes and could, theoretically, produce babies entirely independently of a human womb. So you can't really gloss over what abortion actually is.

Now I have a robust attitude towards life and death, growing up on a farm and being a firm advocate of meat-eating and huntin' and fishin' and all the animal-slaughtering resultant therein. However, I also believe that if you're grown up enough to let your eggs and your sperm get within touching distance of each other, you're grown up enough to deal with the consequences.

I personally consider the 'pro-choice' decision to be no decision at all.

Why an Abortion Ban is wrong...

Despite that being my personal take on the abortion issue, I am strongly opposed to the Republican demand for a federal ban on abortions - or giving individual states the right to ban the procedure. There are several reasons for this.

An Abortion Ban won't End Abortion

Remember prohibition, anyone?

The abortionist is probably the world's second oldest profession - probably stemming from a need generated by the first! Throughout recorded history there have always been abortions and doubtless, there always will be in the future.

From medicine women giving herbs and tinctures to induce miscarriage, to midwives with coat-hangers doing a side business 'helping' careless girls - the history of abortion is pretty much as long as the history of civilisation.

Abortion has only been legal for the last half century - yet it was a flourishing business in America long before then. Frank Sinatra's mother, Dolly, used to perform abortions in pre-war Hoboken.

The simple fact is, as long as there is a demand for abortions, there will be people willing to supply them - legally or illegally. Last year, there were 1.2 million abortions performed in the United States alone. Conservatives who imagine a ban will end them overnight are delusional.

At least legal abortions are performed by licenced physicians in clean, clinical conditions. A woman visiting an abortion clinic is offered counseling to ensure she's fully aware of the ramifications of the decision she's making. As it is presently, woman having abortions are at least offered a safe environment in which to do so.

If conservatives successfully overturn Roe vs. Wade - the Supreme Court ruling that declared abortion a constitutionally protected right - the abortion industry would simply go underground.

1.2 million women every single year seek abortions. The vast majority of them would continue to do so even if abortion was made illegal. They only difference is, they'd have them performed by unlicenced physicians, in unsanitary conditions - without any form of accountability.

History has shown that illegally performed abortions have a very high rate of infection, injury and death. If conservatives overturned the ban on abortions, they wouldn't save the lives of 'all' the babies. They'd just add a large number of young women to the death toll.

This is the number one reason why a ban on abortion is stupid. You don't have to like abortion - but you do have to accept the reality of the situation.

It's the conservatives' fault...

Abortion 'friendly' England is famed for it's high rate of teenage pregnancy. However, it's interesting to note that the real figures for unplanned teenage pregnancy are actually much higher in the United States - more than double.

Head down south to Texas and that percentage rate shoots up to be more than three times the figure in England - almost sixty girls out of a thousand wind up pregnant. Statistically, that means a higher percentage girls are having abortions in Texas too.

And why? Well, ironically, it's the fault of the same people calling for an abortion ban! Conservative policies are often to blame for unplanned pregnancies in the first place!

Take, for example, sex education. In modern society - with depictions of sexually active teenagers all over the television and movie screens - it's an accepted fact that youngsters are going to sexually experiment.

Yet abortion-hating conservatives also demand that teenagers are given 'abstinence only' sexual education. They're not told about contraceptives, sexually transmitted diseases or condoms. Instead, the conservatives believe teenagers should simply be instructed to 'keep it in their pants' until the day they walk down the aisle.

Yet mountains of research has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that abstinence only sexual education does not work. Kids are just as likely to be sexually active after receiving abstinence only sexual education as kids who were taught about the 'bells and whistles' of responsible sex.

The only difference is that 'abstinence only' kids don't use protection.

How conservatives could ever imagine that abstinence only sexual education works is beyond me. The only thing I do understand is that this policy directly contributes to unplanned pregnancies.

Conservatives are a driving force behind the demand for abortions.

I'll tell you what to do, but I sure ain't helping...

Another way in which conservative policies directly contribute to the number of abortions performed in America regards their attitudes towards welfare.

In England, 17% of all pregnancies are terminated. In the United States, that figure is 22%. Why is the figure so much higher in America, where 50% of the population is supposedly against abortion?

The answer is easy - and directly linked to the number one reason why women have abortions. "I can't support a baby right now."

Britain's 'nanny state' policies reward single teenage mothers. Having a baby means a council house, welfare cheque and child support. For many teenage girls in lower class parts of the country, having a baby is seen as career choice. Women are 'set for life' if they knock out a couple of sprogs by age 20.

It's not an admirable policy - but it explains why more women in Britain are willing to follow their pregnancy through than in America.

Because rightly or wrong, America has a considerably smaller welfare system and the state is not going to be there to support every single mother. An unplanned pregnancy often means a woman simply can't support herself or her new baby - driving women towards having abortions simply because they have no other choice.

And ironically, it's conservative policies that drive this demand for abortions. The Republican's are the party of 'small government' in which Americans are expected to fend for themselves in matters of welfare and healthcare.

Republicans angrily insist that pregnant women carry their pregnancies to term - but then refuse to support them when they do. It's utterly contradictory and hypocritical. The pro-life conservatives cry that 'all life is sacred' as long as it's not their life and they're not expected to pay for it.

I'm not saying it's a good idea - I myself have conservative financial values - but if the conservatives REALLY wanted to reduce the number of women having abortions, they'd be there to offer them support. If a woman is driven to an abortion clinic because she 'can't support a baby,' a true pro-life campaigner would reach into their pocket and pay the rent cheque and grocery bill that this new mother can't.

But, of course, that's not how most conservatives think. They limit their appraisal of abortion to moral condemnation and angry jundgementalism. They never think of the consequences of their actions.

1.2 Million Served...

Zooming out and looking at the big picture, there are some other serious ramifications behind a conservative call for a blanket ban on abortions.

Last year, 1.2 million women had an abortion. Imagine, for a second, the inconceivable notion of 1.2 million women with unplanned pregnancies actually carrying them to term every single year!

Right now, the conservatives are bitching about the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants entering the country every year. Imagine what would happen if a group as large as the population of Dallas, Texas turned up in our maternity wards as well?

Constitutional Hypocrisy

Let's not forget the possibly most important reason why a ban on abortion is an idiotic idea. Because the Supreme Court - the highest court of law in the United States - said a ban on abortion is fundamentally unconstitutional.

According to the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, banning abortions violates the Fourteenth Amendment. That ruling means that no state or national legislative body can ban abortions. You don't have to like it, but it's the law.

Conservatives who oppose abortion want to elect a president who will appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court - and hope that one of them will overrule Roe vs. Wade. There's nothing like bypassing the democratic process when you've got an axe to grind, eh?

Let's not beat around the (George) Bush. It's very clearly established in the Constitution that judges are not supposed to legislate from the benches. Making laws is the job of Congress and the Senate - and those laws must fit within the confines of the Constitution.

If conservatives want to pass a law banning abortions, they're damn well going to have to do it through the legislative, facing the scrutiny of this nation's elected representatives. Screwing around with Supreme Court is unconstitutional and unAmerican.

Conservatives may decry people burning the American flag, but apparently they're more than willing to stomp all over it to get what they want.

Just plain dumb...

And, finally, there's just the very unlikable face of the pro-life conservative movement, who undermine the morality of their argument each and every day with offensive and hypocritical actions.

Life is sacred, say the conservatives. Yet fervant anti-abortionists shoot doctors dead outside abortion clinics. Conservatives still support the death penalty. The right wing only 'Support our Troops' as far as sending them abroad to be shot at by Islamic fundamentalists.

I really don't like being lectured about the sanctity of life by people whose hands are practically dripping with blood.

The Solution

It's not all bad news. There is hope for the conservatives and for a rational, practical campaign to eliminate the need for abortions. Those who are pro-life have to look at the big picture and decide which values are more important to them - and what they're willing to sacrifice to help stamp out the demand for abortions in the United States.

Because banning them won't work - but long term changes might.

There are two main keys to reducing the number of abortions - and hopefully setting a precedent that will see the demand for pregnancy termination practically reduced to zero.

• Adequate sex education for teenagers - so they know how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy if they're sexually active (and two out of three are.)
• Adequate resources for poor mothers - so if a woman finds herself pregnant, she doesn't need to worry about paying for a roof over her head or affording food and medical bills.

The downside, of course, is that conservatives are going to have to put up with higher taxes to pay for this - and they're going to have to get off their blinkered high horse about decent sex education.

Whether or not the average conservative is willing to make that sacrifice is a question I can't answer - but until they're willing to, women will still seek abortions (legally or not.)

NJ Bans the Death Penalty

Today, New Jersey Governer Jon Corzine signed into law the historic state legislation which bans the death penalty.

Both New Jersey's assembly and senate approved the measure, which replaces death by lethal injection with life imprisonment without chance of parole.

Although there had been much ire about the move - which on paper spares death row inmates like child sex killer Jesse Timmendequas - in reality all the legislation did was legitimise a de facto ban on capital punishment. No inmate has been put to death in New Jersey since 1963.

The death penalty is one of the biggest contradictions in American society. To many, the very existence of capital punishment undermines the United State's place as 'leader of the free world.'

In the European Union, vocal critics of the death penalty point out that 'capital punishment is incompatible with a civilised society' and cite that membership requirements of the European Union include a total ban on capital punishment.

Supporters of the death penalty claim that convicted murders and terrorists cost the tax payer thousands of dollars every year by keeping them locked up - and the death penalty ensures that the guilty will never re-offend.

However, I believe the ban on the death penalty is a good thing. While convicted offenders might deserve to die (or, rather, not deserve to live) it's a very hypocritical society that considers itself authorised to kill them.

Tintin in the Congo

"In every generation, children's books mirror the society from which they arise." Leonard S. Marcus.

For my whole life, I have been a fan of Herge's wonderful Tintin books. Chronicling the international adventures of a 'boy reporter' from Belgium, they were my first introduction to reading on my own and kindled a love of reading (and adventure stories) that I've enjoyed my entire life.

When I was a boy, I nearly had the entire set of Tintin books, from Tintin in America to his final adventure in Tintin and the Picaros. But one elusive book prevented me from completing my collection. Tintin in the Congo, the first (actually the second) book in the Tintin Library, was unavailable in British shops.

This was because British publishers Methuen felt that Tintin in the Congo was too controversial for a young British audience. Before a translated version of the book finally hit British bookstores in 2005, the only way to see it was by buying an original language copy in France.

Tintin in the Congo, more than any other Tintin adventure, was a product of it's time. The original story was penned by Herge in 1930 and recounted Tintin's voyage to the Belgian colony in West Africa, where he combated a diamond smuggling ring lead by villainous Al Capone.

For modern audiences, the book is shocking. The natives of Congo are portrayed as ignorant and childish, causing accidents and mishaps with their incompetent use of Western technology. Herge draws the Africans as gangly, misshapen creatures with coal black skin and enormous lips. It's all embarrassingly outdated and uncomfortable - an example of the naive misconceptions and stereotypes people made about Africans almost eighty years ago.

However, despite Tintin in the Congo hitting the stands way back in 1930, it's only now that British organisation the Commission for Racial Equality has turned it's attention to what they describe as 'highly offensive material.'

They've demanded British bookshop Borders remove Tintin in the Congo from their shelves, citing that "the only place that it might be acceptable for this [book] to be displayed would be in a museum, with a big sign saying 'old fashioned, racist claptrap'.

Borders responded by moving the offending book off the shelves of the Children's section and into the Adult Graphic Novels department, rebuking the CRE's demands with: "Borders stands by its commitment to let customers make the choice."

I think that's a perfectly acceptable compromise. As an adult Tintin fan, I do want the choice of purchasing a copy of Tintin in the Congo, fully aware of it's controversial nature and equally aware of the historical context in which the book was written. Children who are fans of Tintin can satisfy themselves by reading some of the boy reporter's other adventures. Those remain in the children's section.

The real question is whether the CRE will accept this compromise. Their statement, which you can read here, calls for the book to be removed from the shelves entirely. Personally, I think that's ridiculous. If you start removing one book from shops because of outdated content, why not start removing all of them?

I mean, as offensive as Tintin in the Congo apparently is, the stereotypes and naive racism are surely no more offensive than, say, those contained within Jules Verne's Five Weeks in the Balloon; in which British adventurers shoot native Africans, mistaking them for baboons - or H Rider Haggard's King Solomon's Mines; which is full of rampant imperialism and racism.

What about Huck Finn's troubled conscience when he helps slave 'Nigger Jim' escape his abusive masters in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? The book itself was groundbreaking in the way it portrayed Jim as a real human being, rather than property or an object. Yet white-trash Huck Finn is still more worried about the moral implications of liberating somebody else's property than helping his friend escape.

All of these books are products of their time. They were written during a less enlightened period. Reading them is an education into the real core of History. Not what people wore or what people did during life a century or two ago - but how they thought.

These books give us an opportunity to look inside society as it was then - and allow us to compare it to the way we think and live now. In that respect, they are very important and banning them is a ridiculous concept.

Tintin in the Congo

What makes Tintin and the Congo interesting isn't just the historical perspective in which it should be read. Author Hergé had an interesting relationship with the book and expressed embarrassment at the ill informed and prejudiced views within it.

He was constantly reminded of this because the Tintin franchise went through constant regeneration. His original 1930 story was updated in 1946 and turned into the full colour edition we see today (which CRE want banned.) In the sixteen years since he originally wrote it, Herge had undergone quite a bit of personal development and gained an attention to detail and demand for factual accuracy in his writing. He saw his early works as deeply flawed - especially Tintin in the Congo.

These perceived flaws were why Herge didn't allow Tintin's true 'first adventure' - Tintin in the Land of the Soviets - to undergo the same reworking as his other books. In that book, Tintin heads to Moscow and battles against the stereotypical Soviet bad guys. Unlike his later works, which involved extensive research from books, photographs and films to make the localities as accurate as possible, Herge based this entire adventure from a single book, Moscou sans voiles written by a former Belgian diplomat Joseph Douillet.

Similarly, Herge wrote Tintin in the Congo without actually having visited Africa - and his youth and enthusiasm explain why he used stereotypes and cliché in his description of the Africans. The accusations of racism the CRE make could equally be directed to Congo's sequel, Tintin in America, in which he portrayed Americans as gangsters and racketeers.

In fact, it wasn't until The Blue Lotus that Herge developed a real interest in making his stories as accurate and factual as possible. To research Tintin's new adventure, he consulted Chang Ch'ung-jen, a Chinese student, who explained the history, culture and art of his homeland and woke Herge up to just how prejudiced and inaccurate his preconceptions about China had been. From that point on, Herge vowed to painstakingly research his books and even made reference to the ignorance of his countrymen in The Blue Lotus, when Tintin explains to Tchang (a character based on Chang Ch'ung-jen) what misconceptions Europeans held about the Chinese.

From the Blue Lotus until Herge's final book, Tintin and the Picaros, the adventures of Tintin would be hailed for their accuracy. That's a sharp contrast to the contents of Tintin in the Congo; and makes that book so much more interesting and important as a result.

Banning Books

The CRE decided to launch their campaign against Tintin in the Congo after Human Right's lawyer David Enright found the book in a local branch of Borders bookshops. As a Human Rights lawyer, he should be satisfied with Border's response:

"Naturally, some of the thousands of books and music selections we carry could be considered controversial or objectionable depending on individual political views, tastes and interests. However, Borders stands by its commitment to let customers make the choice."

Unless, of course, he's willing to do what many supporters of 'human rights' do and gloss over the rights of freedom of expression and choice (which they hold sacred for their own ends) if the expressions and choices one makes are not 'politically correct.'

The most important questions CRE has to ask themselves is: What will banning Tintin in the Congo achieve?

Will it help reduce racism amongst impressionable young people? Probably not. Impressionable youngsters are sadly not lining up outside Borders to get their mitts on eighty year old comic books.

If David Enright and CRE are really concerned about combating racism amongst young people, they should direct their efforts towards the media: Like modern rap music, which contains widespread use of racial slurs, promotion of gang violence and disrespect towards women. Or what about television personalities? People like Jade Goody, who are millionaires despite being vile racist bullies. These are the people youngsters watch and emulate; not ageless boy reporters adventuring through a world which no longer exists.

Which is more the pity. Throughout his adventures, Tintin promoted respect, sobriety and humanitarianism. He tried never to kill even the most wicked of evil doers. He rescued and befriended drunks and rogues. And apart from in Tintin in the Congo (when he blew up a rhinoceros with dynamite) he was never cruel to animals.