02 Jul 2006
Beer ad prompts resort evacuation

I don't know if this was really a mistake: I've always thought of PBR as a weapon of mass destruction ...

The beer ad attracted attention -- but not in the way Pabst Blue Ribbon had intended.

(link) [CNN]

13:34 /Humor | 0 comments | permanent link

Experts debate labeling children obese

TheThe problem is that 20 years ago, when these kids' parents were kids, what is now considered "obese" was called "healthy", and what was called "emaciated" is now called "fit". Fashion, as they say, goes in one year and out the other.

All in all, these debates about what to say to whom and when remind me of the gentleman pictured at the left. Click the image for a fuller discussion along these lines...

AP - Is it OK for doctors and parents to tell children and teens they're fat?

(link) [Yahoo! News: Top Stories]

13:28 /Politics | 4 comments | permanent link

Plots let you get back to nature -- eternally

Nice article on "green burial". If this option were available here, I'd certainly avail myself of it when the time comes. Although I would have a headstone raised ... that's one of the problems with modern cemeteries.

Religiously, raising a runestone (in modern terms, a headstone) is my obligation to my parents, to insure that they're remembered in succeeding generations. It's my children's obligation to me, but it's one they might not be able to fulfill. Most modern burial plots forbid raised markers, because it's too hard to cut the grass around them! This makes graves nearly impossible to find without a map, and makes strolling across our heritage about as interesting as walking one of my pastures or paddocks. Modern cemeteries don't look like necropoleis: they look like golf courses.

Since green graveyards won't be trimming the verge, there should be no reason why a stone could not be raised. Which to me is one more reason to support this movement.

It sits on the eastern fringe of New York's Finger Lakes region and is bounded on three sides by 8,000 acres of protected forests: a perfectly natural place to spend an eternity.

(link) [CNN.com]

08:00 /Asatru | 2 comments | permanent link

A Heathen Thinks About Gay Marriage

Let's start with a disclaimer: I'm speaking strictly for myself on this issue, and not for the Kindred of Ravenswood, the Troth or any other heathen organization.

There's been a lot of news lately about gay marriage - and it's shaking some religious institutions to the core. This is, to a large extent, a non-issue for heathenry. First, because we have no central authority, each kindred and godman pretty much sets their own policies. Secondly, because the lore and the historical evidence shows that the issue was pretty much a non-starter for our ancestors. The Viking Answer Lady has a excellent discussion of homosexuality in Viking Age Scandinavia:

My personal research into homosexuality in the Viking Age shows clearly that the Vikings had words (and therefore mental constructs and concepts) of same-sex activity; however since the needs of agricultural/pastoral living require reproduction not only to work the farm but also to provide support for the parent in old age, it was expected that no matter what one's affectional preferences were that each individual would marry and reproduce. There are no recorded instances of homosexual or lesbian couples in the Viking Age: moreover, the idea of living as an exclusively homosexual person did not exist in most cultures until present day Western civilization appeared. One's sexual partners mattered little so long as one married, had children, and conformed at least on the surface to societal norms so as not to disturb the community.

So where does that leave us today? We need to start with an analysis of what exactly a marriage is - we can't very well discuss marriage without knowing what we're talking about, eh?

At it's root, at it's very core, a marriage is a contract. That's all - nothing more and nothing less. This contract usually stipulates sexual fidelity, and effectively merges the property of the contractors into one unit.

Some will say "But isn't a marriage about raising children?" While the collective economic unit formed by a marriage (a family) is certainly the most conductive environment to raising children, if we accept that this is a core principle of marriage then we would be forced to conclude that childless married couples, whether by choice or chance, are not really married at all. And I daresay we don't want to go there.

A marriage is unlike any other contract in modern society in that it still requires a ritual "sanctification", usually by a religious authority (but sometimes by a judge or other civil authority) to take effect. Nobody is required to pray over a real estate closing or an employment contract, but for marriages, a ritual is de rigeur. Thus the involvement of religious institutions in the political debate swirling around the extension of the rights of a marriage contract to same sex couples.

And that's all we're really talking about: the extension of the right to make a particular kind of contract to two people who are the same gender. Currently in the United States, only the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recognizes the legitimacy of such contracts, although Vermont and some other states have instituted a similar contractual provision without the name "marriage" - the so-called "civil union" option.

All heathens hold that an oath is one of the most sacred acts one can perform in Midgard: breaking a formal oath is the only real analogue in heathenry to "sin", and keeping one's oath is considered of absolute paramount spiritual importance. And there is absolutely no reason why a heathen goði or gyðia should refuse to hear any legal oath that the participants care to make. And therein lies the rub.

I wholeheartedly support the right of all people to take an oath of love and commitment to one another: there's absolutely no spiritual reason in heathenry why same sex couples should be denied the ability to make this oath. And I will vote for political candidates who support this right. But until and unless it becomes legal in the State of Indiana, and the couple can present me with a duly authorized marriage license, I will not hear that oath. It's not homophobia: I won't perform a classic "handfasting" for opposite sex couples either. Legality matters, papers matter.

Were I to have a person come to me and ask that I serve as an oath witness to his vow to murder another person, that would make me an accessory to the crime, both morally and in the eyes of the law. Nor would I mark and witness oaths involving one party selling him or her self into slavery to the other, or committing to the delivery of illegal drugs or any other civilly criminal act. I don't like jail.

I can hear the outcry now: "We're not talking about murder contracts, or slavery, or dopers! We're talking about hearing an oath between two people who promise to love each other forever! Who cares if the civil authorities cannot or will not sanction it?"

I care if the civil authorities sanction it, and the oath takers better care, too. I won't hear a same sex "marriage" ceremony in the State of Indiana because the State of Indiana doesn't recognize such contracts. Why do I pay attention to the State in this matter while ignoring it in so many others? It's really a very simple matter of contract enforcement - without State involvement, the couple will have no recourse when love goes south. And take it from somebody who's been married multiple times, love sometimes does indeed go south. I'm covering my ass.

If you're really ready to take an oath like that, you need to go get the paperwork and get your ducks in a row. If you just want to "give it a try", you don't need my help to make an oath: you can witness it yourself, as it's not binding in any case.

I haven't always felt this way: there was a time when I heard handfasting oaths, between all kinds of couples. And it happened to be one I heard between two young ladies that changed my mind forever.

I'm not going to name real names here, so let's call our couple Jill and Jane. They had been together over five years, and seemed to be the most stable of people. I had been a guest in their (shared) home many times, and they in ours. We were sworn kinsmen - they had been oathed members of our kindred for many years. And when they wanted to take public vows, I agreed to hear them, and to witness the oath.

It was a beautiful ceremony, too. I've done lots of weddings, and these two were as in love as any two I've ever had the pleasure to legally hitch. Except they were both girls. That was the only difference, or so I thought at the time.

The other difference was that they didn't have that little piece of paper signed by the county clerk: no license to marry. Consequently, I heard a legally unenforceable oath - and a flawed one to boot. It seems they had sworn to be true "for as long as love shall last". It didn't last more than two years. And when it headed south due to Jill's infidelity, Jane went ballistic.

Turns out that the house was in Jill's name, but Jane was making the payments. In fact, their collective finances were so screwed up that Jane could quite literally sing that old divorce doggerel "She got the gold mine, I got the shaft".

So Jane came to the kindred, asking that we enforce the oath religiously. And we tried, we really did: Jill was told that her new beau was unwelcome at blot and sumbel. She protested: her contention was that she'd broken no oath, and that love didn't last, and there was no written contract anyway. She left in a huff.

Jane was totally unsatisfied, and broke to boot, and she left, too. In fact, the whole kindred started cracking at the base, all due to the lack of a little piece of legality.

A "handfasting" or a "gay union" ceremony isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on. Making such an oath, or even witnessing one, can lead to far more trouble than you can imagine, as the human heart is a tender thing, and Hel had no fury like love spurned.

I find it unconscionable that our society denies this basic right to homosexuals. If one person cannot make a legally binding oath to another person, then those folks are truly "second class citizens". It's wrong, but it's a wrong that's got to be solved on the political front.

I would probably reconsider my position if the parties had consulted lawyers beforehand, and had the necessary powers of attorney and other documents and contracts drawn up. But this would, in the eyes of the law, constitute a "marriage", and all those constitutional amendments that are currently working their way through state legislatures across the country would effectively nullify any such arrangements.

I think the people pushing these bigoted agendas are going to discover a bitter irony: these bans on "arrangements constituting marriage" are going to bite more than gays. In the complex where my mom lives there's an elderly couple that has "shacked up", without benefit of marriage, because of the way their pensions and social security is structured. If they were to get married they'd lose their butts, financially. But they have all the paperwork that would qualify as an "arrangement constituting marriage", and when Indiana outlaws that option, they're going to be real surprised to discover that their wills are invalid, and their medical powers of attorney and other documents don't mean squat.

All because some people are threatened by what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

It's ridiculous.

07:48 /Asatru | 6 comments | permanent link