Occam’s Razor

Where no man has gone before

These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. (Italics mine)

Speaking of Star Trek, actor George Takei (age 71), a member of the original Star Trek cast who is perhaps better known as Lieutenant Sulu was married yesterday at the Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles, California. Most Americans would probably wish Takei best wishes in his marriage, but perhaps fewer would if they knew that he married another man.

His husband is Brad Altman, age 54. This might suggest that Takei has a tendency for younger men, except they have already been happily together for twenty-one years. Regardless of what you think about gays and the sanctity of marriage, it is likely that this marriage will survive, since it seems like it has been a marriage in all but the legal sense for a long time.

Well, maybe not. On November 4th, California voters get to weigh in on Proposition 8 that would declare marriage between gays and lesbians illegal. So perhaps this marriage will only survive in the legal sense for a few more months. Takei and Altman though need not worry too much. Current polls suggest Californians will defeat the proposition handily.

Takei may be a famous actor but that doesn’t mean Uncle Sam will cut he and Altman a tax break for their commitment of love. Gay marriage may be technically legal in California and Massachusetts, but that doesn’t mean they can expect any federal recognition for their union. When it is time to file their 1040s with the IRS next year, they darn well better check “Single” or the IRS may have to send its auditors to check their returns for the last thirty years.

Star Trek was of course a product of the 1960s when liberalism was surging. Star Trek let us envision a different world after we had transcended polarizing issues such as racism and sexism. The Enterprise was the model of diversity. Takei played the token Asian. Still, creator Gene Roddenberry was not quite bold enough to add an openly gay character. Back in the 1960s, if you were a homosexual you were deep, deep in the closet. Homosexuals were almost universally perceived to be perverts and deviants. Except for a handful of people, heterosexuals could not conceive of homosexuals being otherwise ordinary people.

So while Takei performed in the original series I doubt he informed Gene Roddenberry about his sexual preference. Back then I suspect Roddenberry probably would have recoiled had he known of his proclivities. Most likely Takei would also have been out of a job. Even if he were okay with it, NBC would not have allowed it. What if it got into the press? I mean, the show ran during prime time! Roddenberry was an extraordinary liberal of his age. I learned when I heard him speak at my university in 1975 that he embraced the radical notion of child liberation, i.e. children should have the right to make their own decisions rather than their parents. In the 1960s, accepting a known homosexual on his cast probably would have been a bridge too far.

Still, there were relationships among the Star Trek characters that raised some eyebrows. Fans noticed right away that the relationship between Kirk and Spock (and to a lesser extent, between Kirk and McCoy) seemed, well, unusually close. Spock was loyal to Kirk, but his feelings transcended mere loyalty and even friendship into something that sure looked like (for all his Vulcan logic) emotional dependency. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Spock’s last words before dying to save the crew were, “I am and always shall be your friend.” There wasn’t a Trekker in the theater, man or woman, who was not welling up. Female fans picked up the homosexual subtext early. Their interest spawned all sorts of erotic fanzines that detailed (and continue to detail to this day) the enormous emotional and sexual energy they figure must have been going on between the two characters. In fact, it started a whole movement known as slash. In his last interview, Gene Roddenberry spontaneously admitted that while he felt he was capable of sex with men, he never acted on the impulse. He said that he was intrigued by what he saw as the “many joys and pleasures and degrees of closeness in those relationships”. Whether these feelings manifested themselves overtly or unconsciously in the closeness portrayed between Kirk and Spock is unknown.

Over the years, the Star Trek cast has remained a fairly close bunch. This was due in part to its enormous fan popularity, but also because most of its actors became typecast and had few other choices for earning a living. Some, like the late James Doohan (Scotty), decided to revel in the fan experience. It was hard to attend any Star Trek convention without finding Jimmy. So perhaps it is not surprising that when Takei and Altman were married yesterday, two prominent roles in the wedding went to two members of the Star Trek cast. Walter Koenig (who played Ensign Chekov) was Takei’s Best Man. Nichelle Nichols (Lieutenant Uhura) also attended as his “Best Woman”. It does not appear that any other of the original Star Trek actors were in attendance.

Star Trek has indeed taken us, in the imagination, to brave new worlds but in 1966 when the show started this was a world no one dared show on television. It may be 2008 but I imagine it still took some bravery for Koenig and Nichols to stand up for their long time friend on his long delayed wedding day. It makes me wonder why Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner did not attend. Perhaps they were not invited. On the other hand, perhaps Takei’s sexual orientation made them uncomfortable. Takei is hardly the first man to get married in America, but he is perhaps the most prominent gay American to do so. In a sense, he is taking many Star Trek fans boldly into a new world. His sexual orientation was hardly a secret but not necessarily known among casual fans of the show. Takei also has a history of boldly standing up for injustice. He is a prominent figure in promoting attention to the injustice inflicted on Japanese Americans because of their involuntary internment during World War 2. This also explains his choice of a wedding location.

As an atheist, Roddenberry did not believe in an afterlife. Nonetheless, if he did find himself inadvertently in the afterlife after his death at age 70 in 1991, I bet yesterday his immortal spirit was observing Takei and Altman take their vows. If he could be seen, I bet he would be seen gently crying in joy. For so many years later, Star Trek is still taking us to brave new and enlightened worlds.

It’s trite, but live long and prosper, guys.

September 22nd, 2008 at 06:27pm Posted by Mark | Sociology | one comment

Not quite the end of the world as we know it

If you are a regular reader, you will know that my family and I just got back from a week long driving tour of New England. My political and social radar though is never wholly turned off, even on vacation. For some Americans, going to New England is daaaangerous. Granted, the reputation of Boston drivers is well deserved, based on our limited encounters. What worry many Americans, particularly from red states, are the dangerous laws up there in New England, particularly the ones that allow gay marriages and civil unions. From all their huffing and puffing, I figured there was a pedophiliac faggot hiding behind every other tree.

It turns out there is not a single state in New England that does not recognize gay unions in some form. The most prudish state in New England is Rhode Island, which may be due to its Puritan heritage. It does not allow gay marriages or civil unions and will not recognize gay unions or marriages from other states. However, it does recognize gay marriages from other countries. So if you are a gay couple that wants to settle in Rhode Island and enjoy the benefits of being married, I’d suggest getting married outside the United States first. Fortunately, Canada is only four or five hours away by car from Rhode Island. We only spent a few hours in Rhode Island but not once did I see an openly gay couple. Doubtless, this is due to their morally correct marriage laws.

Stray into Massachusetts and surely, you must be in extremely dangerous moral territory. Upon driving into the state, I expected to see hellfire and brimstone, but the closest thing I saw were a set of thunderstorms in the distance over Boston. Perhaps God was sending a warning. He could have sent those thunderstorms over relatively moral Providence, Rhode Island but no, they made dead aim for the most populous city in arguably the most morally lapsed state in the country. After all, Massachusetts had the audacity to be the first state to permit actual gay marriage. Not only do they allow gay marriage in the state, but they also recognize gay marriages and civil unions performed in other states. They will even marry gays from other states who are not permitted to do so in their state of residence.

So my eagle eye was on the lookout for moral depravity. I found some, I think, right in the hotel lobby of the Doubletree Bayside in South Boston where we stayed. There is an Au Bon Pain in the hotel that provides a convenient breakfast for many of the hotel’s guests, who eat at tables in the lobby. During our second breakfast at the hotel, I noticed that three men arrived, gave each other hugs and started kissing each other on the lips. Then they started talking without giving each other the sort of body space most Americans expect. I guess I should have been more shocked than I was, but based on the cut of their hair and their clothes it is possible they were from Italy. As shocking as it may seem to Americans, in parts of Europe like Italy heterosexual men openly hug and kiss each other and have no problem getting into each other’s personal space. Nonetheless, they could have been brazenly licentious gay Americans. Such a breathtakingly open display of same sex affection might have gotten them lynched in states sufficiently far south of the Mason-Dixon line.

But that was it. We spent three days and two nights in Massachusetts and that was the extent of the moral depravity that I witnessed. Maybe I was not looking hard enough. I did find some bums on the street, and we all know bums are morally dubious. Nonetheless, there are plenty of bums in the heart of red state American too. Overall, Boston and Massachusetts seemed shockingly normal and mainstream. People there acted just like people everywhere else except that some of them talked funny and liked to skip pronouncing the R’s in the middle of their words.

Off to Maine where the law forbids same sex marriage but offers limited partnership rights for same sex couples. There was no particular sign of moral depravity there either. I thought I detected a stench in Kennebunkport, but that was probably just from passing the Bush family compound. Once again, people in Maine seemed to behave about as normally as everywhere else.

Thence to New Hampshire where same sex marriage is banned but civil unions that offer the legal equivalent of marriage are permitted. Perhaps we spent too much time in the northern part of the state, but most of the locals looked pretty redneck to me. How could these upstanding moral people pass such liberal laws? The answer is unknown, but again I detected zero sign that the fabric of our country, or at least New Hampshire, was about to come apart.

Perhaps we should have held our noses as we crossed the Connecticut River into Vermont. All the moral mischief started there when the Vermont Supreme Court had the audacity to read its constitution and realize that it could not discriminate against gays who want the legal protections of marriage. So they passed civil union legislation, the first in the country. Same sex marriage is still outlawed in Vermont but civil unions are identical in every way but the wordage. In the immortal words of Gunnery Sergeant Emil Foley (played by Louis Gossett, Jr.) from the 1983 movie, An Officer and a Gentleman, I expected Vermont to be full of little but “steers and queers”. I didn’t see that many steers, though I did see two pony farms, and I understand “ponying” it popular amount some moral deviants. Vermont felt far more like a Norman Rockwell painting that a den of moral iniquity. The fresh faced teenagers who led us into the parking lot at Ben & Jerry’s for our factory tour seemed almost surreal in their wholesomeness.

We did not actually stop in Connecticut but only drove through it. It too allows civil unions that are the equivalent of marriage, while technically banning gay marriage. There was traffic in Connecticut but nothing I could find in the way of the open looting and gays copulating in the streets.

Perhaps the gay marriage movement is just building up steam and any moment now these states will be overrun with gay related crime. It sounds crazy and just call it just a hunch, but after spending a week in New England my guess is the place will do as well or better than the other states in the country. If the end of civilization is imminent, I doubt it will start in New England. Overall, we found it to be a lovely, pleasant and otherwise perfectly ordinary place.

August 21st, 2008 at 07:40pm Posted by Mark | Politics 2008, Sociology | no comments

Virginia is for Haters

What is it about my state? Why does our legislature go out of its way, not just to merely be conservative but to craft laws that actively find ways to stick it to those it doesn’t like? Lately I’ve been feeling like the Christian Taliban has taken over my state government. We had Operation Iraqi Freedom. When do the Marines come in to liberate the citizens of Virginia? What a sad irony: the state that set the standard for freedom in America and gave innovative statesmen like Thomas Jefferson and George Mason now gleefully enacts more and more laws that restrict social and economic freedoms for those it doesn’t like.

The latest outrage totally escaped me until I read about it yesterday. Yes, I knew that our legislature had passed yet another defense of marriage act law. But I thought it was symbolic because Virginia already has many statutes on the book that outlawed gay marriage. Another one seemed like it hardly could make things worse. But I was wrong.

How did Virginia go the extra mile to stick it to gays? On April 21st the Virginia legislature banned all contracts between partners in homosexual marriage-like relationships. Here it is, H.R. 751, in its entirety: one short paragraph:

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

Think about what this means. This means that a gay person who has lived his life with his spouse cannot legally pass on any of his or her assets to his or her partner. It means a gay’s life partner cannot have Power of Attorney privileges. He or she cannot be a beneficiary of their partner’s will. At the end of life a gay’s life partner cannot decide their partner’s end of life care.

This is truly bizarre. In Virginia as a married man I can name my sister as my beneficiary, give power of attorney over to my business partner and write a will that leaves my wife with nothing but my debts. And it’s all perfectly legal if a bit despicable. But if I happened to be gay and have a life partner then under Virginia law I can’t leave him a penny in my will. He could have spent decades loving me and nurturing me. Even though I may have millions of dollars of my own assets I am prohibited from giving even a penny of it to my life partner.

But it appears to be more than that. What sort of other financial things do married people usually do together? Buying property is one. This statute appears to prohibit two gay people from buying shared housing together. Presumably joint bank accounts are not allowed either. Any loans for which both parties are responsible appear to unlawful. Potentially a gay person could adopt a child but certainly not both a gay person and his spouse.

Even more discouraging is that the bill was passed with veto proof majorities. This bill is now the law of the State of Virginia, effective July 1st. This means it will be almost impossible to overturn.

Who was responsible for this monstrosity? Sadly, it was not some down state representative representing Jerry Falwell’s oxymoric Liberty University. No, it was Robert G. Marshall, who represents the nearby city of Manassas. This is the same guy who pushed a law barring access to contraceptives at Virginia colleges and universities.

There are a number of groups here in Virginia who are working to change this law. But make no mistake. We live in a state that even though the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the sodomy laws refuses to take them off its books. Changing this law will be a tough, uphill fight. One way is through a boycott of Virginia businesses. This group for example is maintaining a Virginia business boycott list and only those businesses that certify they are pro-tolerance will be exempted. (Of course it will be hard to call attention to the boycott, so it depends on word of mouth. So trackback this blog entry and forward it to all your progressive friends!) The group is also working on a counterpoint to the Yes Virginia campaign. That effort is trying to convince businesses is other states to relocate to Virginia. But if your business is progressive enough to realize that sexual orientation has no bearing on competency in the workplace you should locate your business elsewhere. Virginia is actively making it more difficult for your business to attract and maintain a quality workforce through blatantly discriminatory laws against homosexuals.

For 35 years Virginia has claimed it was the state for lovers. What a joke. Well, it’s certainly not the state for homosexual lovers. Fornication is unlawful so it’s certainly not the state for unmarried lovers. Adultery is also illegal so it’s not the state for hanky panky. It’s certainly not the state for unmarried couples of the opposite sex who don’t want to get married. Shared cohabitation between unrelated people of the opposite sex is against the law. And until the Supreme Court abolished sodomy laws (including Virginia’s) it wasn’t the state for committed married couples who liked to engage in oral or anal sex. I guess there needs to be an asterisk next to the state slogan: applies to married, heterosexual couples who copulate using the missionary position only.

To all those who are homosexual, bisexual or anyone with any sense of decency and fairness: I am sorry we have a state run by anal retentive knee jerk conservative wackos. I am sorry my state legislature consists of a veto proof majority of twits who have apparently zero sense of compassion or empathy in their tiny little hearts. The Grinch’s heart was two sizes too small. I’m not sure you could find the heart of Rep. Robert G. Marshall. Like Dick Cheney, he must have ice water running through his veins.

July 4th, 2004 at 11:18am Posted by Mark | Politics 2004 | 2 comments