Blog Event

By generations of civil, religious and de facto recognition, we know that society can and does regulate the institution of marriage. Sticking with the civil side of things, by what right does the government have authority to regulate such unions? And if they do have the right, why, and how far does their authority extend? If they do not, why.

The question of government authority to regulate marriage and the point to which it extends are likely to be a key debate in our society over the next few years and I find it unlikely that I will solve it in 1,500 words but the idea was to keep it concise…and I'm already rambling.

Back on point.

Part 1

1. By what right does the government have authority to regulate such unions?
Through history to this point, marriage has been the smallest normal foundation of every society. It's had differing levels of importance but the family unit was the primary formative experience for humans for most of our existence, and the family unit was brought about by the institution of marriage.

A government has the right to pass laws that will protect the liberty of it's people and the interest of it's nation. At first glance, I want to say the government does not have the right to regulate marriage. But on further look I realize that marriage's end, both from death and divorce. In that case, if there are no rules governing property, chaos could ensue as the assets are fought over.

There is also the matter of children and custody, we can't just go around with orphans running around stealing extra bowls of soup, someone should raise them.

This constitutes the need for involvement of impartial mediators, and is a role that the courts can provide.

So I submit that only by the virtue of the property and custody is it necessary for the government to be involved in marriage. But because of those things, the government has a right to regulate marriage insofar as it's responsibility to protect the property rights of it's citizens and the interest of involved children.

Part 2

Since they do have the right and we've discussed why, how far does their authority extend?
Who can get married? When? In what forms? Etc.
Here is gets tricky. Why, if the government's role in this is protecting children in custody disputes and properly allocating property that is being fought over by adults, then any adult should be able to enter into this contract with any other consenting adult so long I suppose as they're both citizens.

What about two men? No issue there based on our argument. Two women? Same. But what about three people? Four? 42?

My point here isn't to indicate a slippery slope argument, I don't see that here. Rather, why on earth from a purely non-theological standpoint is polygamy illegal? A government does not, based on our descriptions so far, have the right to exclude any from this scenario because the purpose of their involvement is only the kids and the stuff. Surely a court can distribute all these things among 3 as easy as 2.

It's less convenient if 116 people are involved so an extreme upper limit might be justified, but surely seven people is ok. Right? The courts can handle these disputes.

The government's authority in this matter does not give it the right to determine who can get married, regardless of any factor save age is there is an "age of majority" like needing to be 18 to enter a contract.

From a purely civil standpoint, the government's role is one of allocation and custody. There is no civil reason why any person or persons should be excluded from making their own arrangements on this.

Unless………

Part 3

Unless I'm wrong about my premise. If the government's role is more than kids and stuff, then they should have more authority.

But what more can it be?

No surprise where I'm going with this.

They can regulate marriage if marriage is more than a contract. If in fact it is an institution of importance by itself. I know I believe it's a sacrament instituted by God, but I'll play ball here. Maybe it's not.

Maybe, through evolution and adaptation, trial and error, we learned that lifetime monogamy between a man and a woman is the best way to raise kids and build a society.

If that's the case, the process can clearly be seen as one that's still ongoing. It's still within recorded history that a man could have many wives. We see the development of the one man one woman marriage as a thing of permanence based on the fact that religions helped bring it on, and no doubt faith has played a role.

But if the atheistic view is correct, then it means this happening was either an incorrect way of doing things forced on society, one of many if not infinite options for forming unions of people or the result of a world that's tried it other ways and found them wanting.

I like to think that it's option three.

And if it is option three, then parts one and two of this blog and null and void. If it is option three, the government has an obligation to protect and maybe even promote what is correct way of things.

However, in a free society the rights of those who would believe it to be option one or two must be protected as well.

So, to sum up.

Yes, the government has the authority to regulate such matters. How far that extends, as far as it pertains to custody and property is almost infinite really, I suppose governed by what the people find apropos. Unless any restrictions levied are in relation to those matters, I would consider them to be unwarranted government intervention.

----

I know I'm under the word limit here, but a bad bout of food poisoning this weekend cut into my time.

The Blog Event....and a note on NaNoWriMo

Dungy and Matt, skip down a paragraph. For the rest of you reading this, unless you are interested in the blog crossover event between me, Matt and Dungy, skip down to the NaNoWriMo section.
------------

First, ok, let's drop steps 4 and 5 and just do like we do on the comments.

For our first topic, if I may be so bold as to go first, will have to do with the legal recognition of marriage, but my aim here has little to do with the gay marriage issue but rather some poly-amorous scenario I read about in an advice column. Nevertheless...

Here's the prompt:
By generations of civil, religious and de facto recognition, we know that society can and does regulate the institution of marriage. Sticking with the civil side of things, by what right does the government have authority to regulate such unions? And if they do have the right, why, and how far does their authority extend? If they do not, why.

I suppose a 1,500 word count is a good number for a concise argument, but I'm open to feedback on that.

I say we make the deadline Monday at 1 p.m. One can post early if need be, but we just need to go on the honor code and say no peeking.

Thoughts?

-----------

NANOWRIMO 2011

I still don't have a plot in mind, just a million ideas and probably a theme of religion.

So submitted for your consideration are a couple plot synopses I might go with.

1. Upon this TV
Two friends from college have taken different faith journeys that have led them to become very different. One is an atheist, the other a protestant-leaning Catholic. The way it goes, the two have gone on to become prominent writers/lecturers for their respective causes. When the book starts, they're getting ready for a national TV appearance on an O'Reilly Factor type of show that will pit them against each other. At this point, they haven't spoken in a few years. Story will be told in flashbacks most likely and will not be about who is right, as much as it will be about the concept of civil discourse.


2. Hell's Angel
A fantastical tale of an demon with the worst job of all demons. He can be called/commanded by guardian angels to appear to Christians who are wavering on the faith to witness to them about the reality of hell. It won't end well for him I don't think. If I do this one, it might end up being a series of related theological leaning short stories that total up to novel size. It will most likely seem very preachy because I lack subtlety.

3. Stereotypical coming of age tale
My loose idea for a story here will be about a girl who grows up in the present and is Catholic. No one she knows is Catholic the usual COA novel shit ensues. I decided if I do this one it will be a girl to keep me from trying to make the main character be me.

4. Got an idea? Let me know in the comments here or on facebook. Thanks.

So what should we write on...

Not so important right now.

I figure we'll do this at least three times. Dungy will go first (by virtue of his emperorship) followed by myself and then Matt. Or you can flip that, all the same to me.

My idea with this is to streamline our process for interacting and it will only work if we all buy into it. Here is my suggestion, what are your thoughts on it?

The format

1. Primary guy picks a topic and a publication date/time and word limit.
2. All three of us post our blog at the appointed date and time, no cheating to see what the others wrote.
3. The aforementioned blogs are read by each of us.
4. There is a two-day window for each of us to pose questions to the others in their respective comment sections.
5. At a specified date and time, with no word limit, we all post our responses to the other two as new blog posts.
6. Comment chaos may ensue.

I feel like this would keep things more focused and by responding on our own blogs we'd be less constricted.

Let me know what you think.

More depressing: Being fat or getting thin?

Working on the weight still. Whatever the last update was is probably the same. We were in a holding pattern, then I gained a few and now I've lost them back. Still got a ways to go.

My company is sending us to Las Vegas in Feb., (same conference they sent us to Texas for in May) which is cool, but another plane ride, and a longer one, doesn't sound fun. I hope to be below 300 by February 1. Last I checked I was at 315.5. I doubt 15 pounds create much seat room, but it's something.

So the title of this blog is an interesting question I think. Sure being obese sucks. I get out of breath easy, I'm sore all the time, I'm at higher risk for every illness that's ever existed etc.

But it also sucks to be trying not to be fat. And while trying, you still have to be fat for a while. So it sucks much worse to be trying to get thin.

Working out leaves me sore for 2 days and the worst part, the WORST part, is just knowing that eating enough to satisfy, or even eating something that tastes good, is impossibly incompatible with the goal of losing weight.

We let the wheels come off the diet for a halloween party at Kelli's brother's house last weekend and it was nice to enjoy a little food, but lord knows how many calories it was.

The diet/meal plan concept thinngy I'm on now has me aiming to eat 1,980 calories a day which in theory could lose me up to two pounds a week.

I eat a tiny breakfast (which is fine with me) and then a truly depressing lunch. Two pieces of bread, 1 slice salami, 1 slice cheese. I also eat 20 unsalted peanuts and a coke zero.

Breakfast and lunch today came out to 655 calories which is on the high side (thicker slice of cheese today) so I have 1,325 calories left for the day and if I exercise, I can gain more. It's like weight watchers but with calories instead of points.

1,325 calories is more than enough for dinner, but if I went out for lunch, or had a decent breakfast, or God forbid had a snack at any point, I overshoot.

So it sucks, but I deem it fair. I got to enjoy way too much food for a decade and if I don't want to feel the consequences, this is the price I pay.

Just felt like venting that.

PREVIEW

Also, I'm kicking around a couple blog ideas, hoping I can pick up the slack in Dungy's absence.

I also think it'd be neat to have some kind of blog crossover event, where we all three choose a similar topic to write about and blog on it, as opposed to just giving bits of our opinion on the original bloggers comments.

Anyway, it's a thought. Time to read a comic book.

Reading the Death of Superman

Just finished reading the above.

Spoilers below.

In 1992, DC Comics killed Superman. He fought Doomsday across the nation, but Doomsday fucked up the entire JLA (or some version of it) and eventually he and Superman killed each other with their last blows.

First, good story. Clunky, clumsy dialogue though, it was the early 1990s. The art isn't bad, but it's not mind blowing with the exception of a few full page panels that are quite powerful.

Here are my main drawbacks, and keep in mind I was 9 when this came out and not yet a comic fan.

Where the hell was Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash or even Aquaman. Why was Maxima and Booster Gold and the Blue Beetle the ones trying to help Superman? Why was the super hero world's junior varsity team battling the only thing in the world that can kill superman?

I don't get it. Maybe there is a really good answer for this but none of it is addressed in the story.

Positives, this book does Superman well. Yes, he's really better than you. He cares about humanity too much. He can't afford to retreat and think things over because more people will die. When Lois and Jimmy get in the way of things, he steps up to a level even he probably didn't know he had.

Superman is disliked because he's rarely challenged and he's hard to kill, but this story shows a man who, regardless of how hard he is to kill, is willing to die for his adopted planet. He fights hard and wins with his last breath.

I give it 2.8 of 5 stars. Give it a read when you start to run out of other comics to read.

John attempt to do something or other

Ok weight update, I downloaded an app that helps count calories. Weight back to 316.

Beat Todd 4-3 in epic best of 7 ping pong series on Tuesday but at the cost of a slightly injured forearm/wrist.

Now on to more interesting pursuits.

My company, IMG College, just gave all of us in publishing Mac G5 computers. They were out work computers until we got new ones. We get these older models free and clear for personal use.

This means I now have the technology at home to essentially produce my own publications.

I've had an idea in my head for a while that I've been meant to merge my skills with my heart and work in Catholic media. It seems impossible to break into this tiny niche industry, so I might start my own publication. I'll need to do a few issues at a loss, make it free, but maybe then I could develop some ad support and grow the thing from there.

I've got a lot to consider on this before getting started but here's my vision.

I don't have a title yet, but it's focus would be on theology and evangelization, not just the usual stuff I've seen (Catholic news, inspirational stories, fellowship etc.)

I want this to be two-fold. First, I want it to be addressed to Catholics, we have a lot of educating to do of our own kind. Second, once educated, I want it to instruct Catholics on how to go out and defend the faith.

If possible, I'd like it to be written in such a way that it could just be left in a laundry room or somewhere and anyone can read it.

I'll probably have to narrow down the focus a lot before getting this off the ground. I'll also need to get more involved and network with Catholics in Lexington. I been down here a while but all my connections are still in Cincinnati.

Anyway, I've got the tools and I've got the talent. I also don't have anything else interesting to say, so, goodbye.