Posted by
t.m. vecchio on Saturday, November 22, 2008 4:55:15 AM
Methinks the title of this trite blog says it all, even without moving its lips. "What once were vices now are customs." Perhaps Seneca was commenting here on what he saw as a decline in public values. Cole Porter seemed to have concurred, although, of course, he put it rather differently, merely uttering in English, "Now, goodness knows, anything goes." And yet there is that other infamous saying about how what goes around comes around. Regardless, if, in fact, anything goes, then why not everything? Since I was in northern California on election day, stuck, to put it mildly, in a divided household with regard to that Prop 8 thing, perhaps I can connect two dots with a crooked (as in non-straight) line.
Now Hume--no, not the guy on the Fox News Channel--believed custom to be the great guide of human life. (He also believe reason to be the slave of the passions but that topic is for another blog.) Now if custom really is the great or main guide of human life--and that would most certainly apply to behavior as well--then what happens when customs change? Or are changed? Since countries and cultures, for example, sometimes have different, even diametrically opposed, customs, then what? How are we to judge which countries and cultures have better--and not merely different--customs? Gee, perhaps we ought not judge, for judging tends to be very judgmental, and if there is something we must be it is non-judgmental. After all, judgmental people make judgments (and are thus judicious), and who the heck are they to make judgements and be judges? I mean, well, we have judges, many of whom are not elected, and they have a job to do, namely, make judgments, so that we (the people) either don't have to do that (bad thing) or we can simply leave it to the pros, because, of course, the pros know and that's why they get paid the big bucks.
Now although judges have to be judicious, since, after all, that's a rather inherent part of their jobs and, with a lot of practice, they become very good at it, other people--although judges are people, too--simply can't be trusted to make good judgments, even though they are called to do that in things like elections, because, well, they are not pros with regard to judging (in general) and certainly are even a whole lot worse in making good judgments (in particular). Some years ago the people of California were asked to vote on something regarding the definition (or redefinition) of marriage, and they made a judgment that the definition of marriage--which is both an institution and a custom--should be (and remain) that it has much, if not everything, to do with the union of one woman and one man. That issue passed, I believe, by a wide margin, which is something it does, though to a greater or lesser extent, in every state where the people get to vote on it. But some folks just didn't like that the will of the majority (and the vox populi) judged that way, so they did what everyone does nowadays when the don't get their way. They sued and so took them--and that terrible midjudgment--to court.
Eventually the case made its way to the top court in the state, which would be the California Supreme Court, and there seven judges would be asked to judge whether or not the (past and current) definition of marriage--which, as an insitution and custom, has been around for a long, long time--was right, that is, fair, that is, good, that is, equal (to all, meaning, I suppose, everyone). If not, well, then the dang thing has to change by a redefinition that it will be given by the judging judges, in order that it can be fair to everyone and not exclude anyone, that is, any two people, period. No, not quite. It can't be just any two people. They must be, for instance, adults (and thus legal adults). They must not be married themselves to other people. They must not be closely related by blood, for we can't have a mother marrying her son or a father marrying his daughter or a sibling marrying a sibling. But any two people can mean, and must mean, any two people other than the ones already restricted, so these two people can be two women, two men or one of each. Now this is inclusion, not exclusion; fair, not unfair; just, not unjust; equal, not unequal. Yes, equality and fairness under the law (and in the law, not outside it). By a 4-3 margin--and majority rules, after all--the legal definition was thus changed by people that were judges in opposition to people that were not judges but were asked to judge ealier via the ballot box. Within the context of the democratic process the will of the majority won but then lost--was trumped, that is--to and by the will of the majority of seven judges, 4-3. Thus there was an overturning of the previous decision (judgment) of the people of the state of California. Finally, after all, the judges got right what the people got wrong. Fairness and justice and equality for all ... under the law, in the law and because of the law. A new "right" was invented or created, one that never seemed to exist before, but did exist before and was discovered by four out of seven judges on the highest court of the state. It is now finally and once and for all (times) over.
No, not quite. It seems a lot of the people did not like what the four out of seven judges did (and said). It is not up to the judges to re-define and make new law regarding marriage (and what it is or of what it consists). But now the institution and custom has been changed, which makes sense, since institutions and customs simply must change (even sometimes overnight) in order to insure that justice is done, meaning fairness and equality be so executed and exercised. Because custom is the great guide of human life, this new custom will serve as a newer guide, a better guide, than the old (antiquated) one. Out with the old, in with the new; down with the traditional and conventional, and if you don't like it, well, shame on you, too bad for you and what's wrong with you?
Still, the will of the majority would not rest. So they came up with a new, which is to say, old, proposition. They were then able to get enough signatures and place it on the ballot. Once again the people--not the judges, even though judges are people, too--will decide and judge this. Well, this time the result was the same, albeit much closer. Once again, however, the will of the people, that is, the will of the majority, decided (again) and judged (again) that marriage must remain as it was and as it has always been. Yet in order to do that it was necessary to amend (correct) the California State Constitution, which, through this process, would not allow or permit judges to make a new law by creating a new right so that their social policy preferences, though concealed by their robes, could be carried out. So the state constitution got amended, and tradition, which is self-correcting, corrected itself by and through the will of the people. Now it's finally, unquestionably, irrevocably over.
But no, no, no. Don't dream, it's over. No. Don't dream it's over. Here come more lawsuits (and more lawyers). And the judges, well, are they actually going to get re-involved once again? No. It would be twice again, for this is the second time they may (or will) get involved. How the customs and laws do change sometimes very quickly and with little or no notice.
The slippery slope gets suddenly slicker and slipperier. Pandora's Box opens even and ever wider. Forty years ago or so, homosexuality was judged to be a mental disorder and viewed as abnormal, unnatural and unhealthy. Today, in these gloriously enlightened times, homosexuality is promoted, celebrated and adjudicated as a viable, healthy lifestyle, no better and no worse than any other, which is to say (the least and most), equal and on the same level as all others. The practice of it is now a right, a civil and protected one, granted and bestowed by certain judges who point to the Fourteenth Amendment and exclaim, "Yes, it's there. It's in there somewhere. We can see it. We're not inventing or creating it. We just need to pull it out of there and show it to others so that they, too, can see it, acknowledge it and accept it. And, no, we're not reading into things or bringing things out that don't exist, because it's just not possible to bring out something that doesn't exist. So it must be there and now we're just discovering it." Of course other certain judges don't see it. In California those judges were in the minority, much like the people who want same sex marriage and want to redefine the traditional, conventional meaning of marriage to suit their unique (and non-bigoted, tolerant, enlightened) world views.
What goes around comes around; what comes around goes around. And if anything goes, then everything goes ... and will go, like tradition and convention and the traditional and conventional. If something as basic and enduring as marriage and the institution therof can be redefined, then anything and everything can be redefined. Imagine the possibilities as you don't consider the ramifications.