Is There a Lone Marksman
in the Editorial Book Suppository?
Aside: A Note About Content. (2022) A few of the editorial comments by JTC during the early 2000s were political in nature. Those represent purely my own opinions stated at the time, and may not have agreed with the opinions of my esteemed team members. Explanation follows. Click for more INFO.
writers and editors (when they are not acting as horror and dark fantasy acolytes,
as we often do here) are supposed to be the thinkers about the future, meaning
at times we actually form intelligent and thoughtful positions on real life
issues rather than dwelling on the endowments of buxom green maidens or the
girth of a warrior's hyper-inflated bicep. Sometimes, ours will be controversial
positions. This seems to be one of those months for me. It is also one of those
moments when it seems prudent to state that any editorial opinions I gargle
forth are my own views and do not necessarily represent the views of the readers
(hahaha), nor of the many good persons who make this magazine possiblehence
the lone swiper postulation.
lived in a variety of countries and had the opportunity to sample their best
and worst (which includes my nation of birth as well as choice, this land which
is my land, this land which is your land, from sea to shining sea, yea with
all its purple prose and verbosity). I sometimes contemplate alternative solutions
found in other lands, and wonder if in the U.S. I am the only shooter from this
hip, the lone marksman in this book suppository, the sole bat in such and such
Take for example
the zeppelinfuls of wasted breath expended upon the Simplizissimus debate
about "gay marriage." The Constitution indicates a preference for keeping Government
and Religion(s) separate, in order that people who vehemently disagree with
that proposition shall not awaken one morning and find that someone else's "cult"
has unexpectedly become the nation's official religion. We have gay taxpayers
who, oddly enough, seem to want the same rights (and obligations) as straight
people. They'd prefer not being lynched in public by people claiming they must
do so out of a profound sense of Christianity. They'd like to be able to will
their property to their lifelong companion with the same tax breaks straight
couples get, or having their companion be allowed to visit them when they are
ill. How gauche of them.
are men who wear fluffy robes and claim to speak with supernatural beings permitted
to perform binding marriage contracts (including at the church where I go of
a Sunday)? Isn't that a mingling of Government and Religion? Wouldn't it be
so much more Constitutional to do like in many European nations (despite the
dumb things Europeans think and do in a great many other ways), where there
is a civil contract, signed by two persons before a civil magistrate with no
religious content whatsoever. I repeat: not the faintest shred of religious
or supernatural content. Religious "ministers" are not permitted to administer
such contracts. The U.S. equivalent might be a justice of the peace. After this
life contract is finished, in Germany for example, the couple are then free
to either have or not have a religious "wedding" or they can get "married" in
whatever church they want-and their church ceremony has no legal standing whatsoever.
Either way, they are already joined in the eyes of the law through their civil
contract, which is simply a contract like any other.
This will of
course horrify those who feel the U.S. is an extension of their particular religious
persuasionnot necessarily mine or *gasp*
yoursbut they will get used to it as they got used to slaves being freed
or women getting the vote. They may not like it, but the law exists equally
for all persons, not just any one group, so tough toottee.
We should have
a civil contract that entirely takes care of the business and legal end of things.
Then those who are so inclined can have a religious "wedding" or "marriage"
in whatever supernatural or philosophical flavor they prefer, and everyone will
be, if not happy, at least not at each other's throats. We do have so many real
issues going on, like poverty, yes?
always, when I turn to mi esposa, a.k.a. mein Liebchen, a.k.a.
ma chère, I am informed that we already have this system here,
sorta. All ya gotta do is get the paper signed by your J.P. and you're married
or wedded or joined or contractually obligated, whatever one wants to call it.
So if we can extend this feature to all citizens (perhaps using a less loaded
Pavlovian trigger of salivation and violence than the word "marriage"), problem
We are the only
major industrialized nation that does not extend a fundamental human right of
equal health care to its citizens. I'll wax eloquent on that in a speculative
futuristic sermonette soon. Meanwhile, please: keep thinking outside the box,
do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, enjoy the fine authors we keep
discovering, and have a wonderful summer.
Notices received from third party organizations will be displayed here as appropriate. If no notice appears here, it means we did not receive any this month.
Books and materials received may not be shown here, but will most likely be reviewed or discussed in our columnists' monthly articles. See appropriate column for info.