Rutgers Basketball - my commentary

Check out this video: http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9125796/practice-video-shows-rutgers-basketball-coach-mike-rice-berated-pushed-used-slurs-players

Former Rutgers Head Coach Mike Rice was fired today following the release of practice videos showing him abusing his players.  Apparently, school officials were made aware of this near the end of last year and suspended him for 3 games.  Three whole games.  Wow.  You put college kids under the care of a grown adult and you find irrefutable evidence of harassment and abuse, and you sit him down for three games.  This guy should have been fired 2 seconds after officials saw the video!

Talk about holding people to different standards.  If someone's history professor pushed, shoved, and hit their students like Mike Rice is in that video, they'd be long gone.  If a teacher had flown a ball at someone's head like that, they'd be standing in line for unemployment the next day, if not a jail cell.

My coworker reminded me that this is the same school where that gay male committed suicide following his roommate taping him with another man and sharing it online.  Apparently, Rutgers didn't do a very good job of emphasizing respect for fellow students and holding up their students and faculty up to a higher standard.

If they're going to make a turnaround, they should be firing all of their basketball staff for allowing this behavior to run rampant, their Athletics Director should get the boot for not having the common sense to get rid of Mike Rice from the onset, and the entire school should review the role that the AD's superiors played.

Outrageous.

In support of Marriage Equality. An attempt at a non-emotional observation.

Marriage has existed for centuries as an institution accessible only by a pair consisting of one man and one woman.  Over time, the benefits and responsibilities associated with marriage have fluctuated depending on the culture and social attitudes where the marriage exists.

There are definite advantages to society, families, and individuals that marriage provides.  In addition, in various times and cultures, certain inequities have been built into the system as well.  In many places, these inequities continue to exist in different quantities, forms, and functions. 

This blog will be two things.  First, it will be an exploration of marriage inequality; a look at where it has occurred in the past and where/when societies moved closer to marriage equality.  Secondly, it will look at marriage as a social contract that benefits society and the impact same-gendered marriage would have on that contract.

No love lost.  In many cultures, marriage has been viewed more of as a financial or political arrangement between two families than an arrangement resulting from affection.  Part of that arrangement is often the expectation of procreation.  In areas of expansion, marriage was also important as a way to ensure that one had a cooperative partner.  Even if viewed as subservient, women were responsible for tending to the home, bearing children, and raising children who would then work to assist the family.  This can be seen in the westward expansion of the early US.

Arrangement.  Arranged marriages continue to be practiced in many places around the world.  As a country built around immigration, the US has a vast history of immigrant males moving to the country for employment or in search of their riches.  As these laborers and seekers of wealth planted their roots, they found themselves in need of women to start families.  One way that some cultures handled this was to send word back to their family in their country of origin to find them a bride.

Property.  The view of women as beneath the status of men is nothing new to many societies.  Over time, that view has equalized in much of the world, but it is still pervasive in many countries.  In ancient Israel, women could do nothing without the consent of their fathers or husbands.  Marriage was a means to procreation and carrying on a man’s lineage.  Single individuals were looked down upon, and men could have multiple wives.  Jacob married his two sisters.  Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

Racial Inequities.  Racial segregation in the US historically included laws that criminalized marriage and sometimes sex between members of different races.  These laws, known as anti-miscegenation or miscegenation laws, were not found to be unconstitutional until 1967.  The US has the distinction of sharing enforcement of these laws with other countries, including Nazi Germany and South America when it was under Apartheid.

Many of the organizations and individuals who argue in favor of marriage inequality do so by stating “traditional” marriage is preferable, or superior, to what they argue is “untraditional” marriage as if the institution of marriage has remained unchanged since the dawn of time.  Past incarnations of marriage however embody racism, gender inequality, and polygamy.  The argument in favor of “tradition” is a scare tactic intended to scare individuals into thinking that by granting equal rights to one group, it will impede on the rights of the group that they currently belong to, and it is an argument that has been used under the guise of different names throughout history.  Example: "The evil tendency of the crime [of adultery or fornication] is greater when committed between persons of the two races ... Its result may be the amalgamation of the two races, producing a mongrel population and a degraded civilization, the prevention of which is dictated by a sound policy affecting the highest interests of society and government." (Pace & Cox v. State, 69 Ala 231, 233 (1882))

The religious argument.  Of course, another tactic, is to try to invoke religious fervor:  "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix." (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967))

Now we come up to the present time.  The argument against marriage equality includes a number of tactics.  The most prominent, as noted earlier, is the religious argument.  Aside from the notion that there exists this ideal “traditional” marriage, there is also the consideration of our country’s preference to separate church and state.  The religious argument, though powerful for the large segment of the population, has lost its steam over time as evidenced by changes in the attitude of the general US population.  Over time, that argument will hold less sway as the older generation gives way to a younger, less sectarian, population.

Marriage as a social contract.  The state is responsible for conferring and dissolving marriage licenses for a reason.  As an institution, marriage has the ability to be beneficial or detrimental to the state economically.   Marriage confers many benefits to society such as stable families with economic security and secure homes where parents are less likely to split up (leading to negative outcomes for children).  Some would find it abhorrent to consider marriage more of a social contract than as a religious one, but the reality is that the church is not needed to enter into marriage while the state is.  Additionally, a large number of Americans do not identify with any existing religious institutions or belong to institutions which do not oppose marriage between two individuals of the same gender.

Incentivizing families.  In the secular argument against marriage equality, the argument that holds the most sway is the one stating that when marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, it de-incentivizes a man’s role in taking responsibility for their children.  In effect, the argument is saying that marriage equality will result in men believing that father figures are no longer necessary, leading them to be less likely to enter into marriage or less likely to maintain the marriage once they are in it.  In other words – they would be more likely to cheat).  This is definitely a cause for alarm.  Fewer in-tact families would lead to greater social costs in terms of government assistance programs for single mothers raising children, poorer outcomes for children being raised in families where the parents have separated.

Where’s the beef?  Unfortunately for the proponents of the aforementioned argument, there is no research that backs up their assumptions, while there is plenty of research which shows the children of same gendered couples show no increased negative outcomes.  Also, the previous argument turns a blind eye to many other factors when it comes to marriage equality.  For starters, procreation is not the only goal of marriage.  If that were the singular reason for society entering into marriage, government would not extend those benefits to couples who were infertile or beyond the age of child-bearing.  We can also go back to an idea presented in an earlier paragraph – that those in favor of inequality will often attempt to garner support through scare tactics.

Marriage equality is about encouraging commitment and responsibility among two loving individuals and granting them benefits based on that commitment and responsibility.  It is about encouraging the two individuals to remain together in support of their child or children if they choose to have them, and to see each other through difficult times.  That’s how I see it anyways.