Keep a few things in mind.  First, as I’ve explained before, the desire people have to be engaged in “important” ideological battles or “culture wars” never goes away, even if issues become settled.  In other words, even if every major political question currently in play in American politics—universal healthcare, abortion, and so on—were answered definitively for the time being, Americans would find something new about which to push for change.

The desire to be in the fray—and to feel important—is a kind of hunger.  Just as with actual hunger, even if you eat every morsel of a given type of food until there isn’t any food left, you’re eventually going to be hungry again.  The lack of that food won’t prevent you from getting hungry.  You’ll be craving food again soon enough.[1]

Secondly, I’m going to skip obvious causes, or ones that follow completely from current events.  The decriminalization of pot, or transgender issues (which have already been lumped in with gay rights) are so clear as to feel like cheating when compiling such a list.  I’m also excluding mere cultural / technological shifts, such as the almost-certain death of daily print media and the effects that might have on our society.  I’m limiting this list to nine topics that may give rise to debates that generate legislative or regulatory efforts.

Here, I think, are nine of the topics at the margins of discussion in 2012 that will become quite pivotal over the next decade or two.  I conclude each with the best guess at the chances of some degree of widespread reform occurring within the next twenty years.

1. Outlawing fossil fuel use – One trend you’ll note in most of these topics is the concept of a “critical mass” of support.  Sometimes, that’s dependent upon institutionalized persuasion (usually through the media, the entertainment industry, and academia).  Sometimes, however, having a dog in the fight—or suddenly not having a dog in the fight—is what it takes to accumulate the prerequisite critical mass.[2]  So, I believe that a critical mass of Americans will be driving hybrid or electric vehicles within twenty years’ time.  Once we pass a certain percentage who no longer have any personal interest in keeping traditional combustion engines readily-available, the move to phase out such vehicles entirely will begin in earnest.  Exceptions will be made for certain industrial and military vehicles, as well as air travel (barring some technological breakthrough), but, for the first time ever, it’s not unrealistic to think that most petroleum-using vehicles will at least begin to disappear relatively soon.  Likelihood = 85%

2. The abolition of marriage – I’ve talked about this one before.  I’m not referring to the abolition of the institution of marriage in a cultural or religious context, only its elimination as a status recognized by and given benefits by the government.  There was some noticeable momentum for eliminating any sort of recognition of marriage in the tax code about a decade ago, which spread more broadly to the idea of erasing civil recognition of the arrangement at all.  The rise of the gay marriage movement overwhelmed and superseded much of the anti-marriage scholarship of the early 2000s.  As a result, I think the newly-won status of gay marriage has delayed the libertarian abolition of marriage altogether for some time.  I still believe that this will ultimately happen, perhaps even in my lifetime, but it’s not very likely to occur within a generation.  Likelihood = 10%

3. Banning of meat consumption – This one isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.  There’s already an established anti-meat contingent in the United States, and the percentage of folks who are vegetarian or vegan continues to rise, while admittedly remaining small for now.  More to the point, per-capita meat consumption in the U. S. may have peaked.  Numerous advocacy groups will be happy to tell you about how harmful eating red meat is to the environment, how inconsiderate and barbaric killing animals for food is, or how evil the major agribusiness companies are.  With all of those factors in place, does anyone seriously doubt that this issue will get major traction once a critical mass (there’s that term again!) of Americans doesn’t eat meat?  The only problem is that it’s going to take more than a generation for us to get to that number, if we do at all.  Consider that at least three out of four Americans are non-smokers, yet we’ve only begun hammering away in earnest on that group in the past twenty years.  At least ten percent of the country will have to back the idea of a meatless society before this becomes fodder for, say, presidential debates.  I think this will happen eventually as well, but twenty years is a fairly aggressive timetable for a country that eats a ton—or, many, many, many tons, actually—of animal products.  Likelihood = 15%

4. General nutrition law – This is somewhat related to the substance of #3, but much more plausible.  We’re already seeing the beginnings of this in a very limited way.  What I’ve got in mind here goes far beyond mere labeling (which most of us disregard anyway).  I’m referring more to the broad idea that society has a reasonable expectation for its citizens to be healthy.  After all, we’ll probably have to provide for healthcare through tax dollars, which gives us a “stake” in the health of our fellow Americans.  Moreover, this argument goes, we have a collective right to improve the health of our country for the sake of the common good or the general welfare of our people.  This movement will begin with kids, possibly with a ban of some type on the amount of sugar that may be legally sold to children, perhaps leading to an outright ban for children under a certain age.  The blueprint for this already exists, as certain food dyes have been banned under a “harmful to children” rationale (and advocates want more banned for everyone).  Chemicals and additives are a short leap from other kinds of ingredients.  With the proverbial foot in that door, it will be much easier to add regulations about what must be done to food (or what may not be done to food) before it reaches the marketplace.  This could take the form of minimal nutrition requirements, or perhaps maximum limits on things like per-weight fat content or salt.  What fascinates me most about this topic is that many of the same people who have advocated the position that there is no collective, societal right to interfere with what someone else does to their own body will be first in line to assert a collective right to prevent ingestion of, e.g., sugary beverages.  Likelihood = 80%

5. Legalization (or decriminalization) of hard drugs – I take it as a given that marijuana will be almost-universally decriminalized in short order.  But what about hard drugs?  The extreme libertarian position would hold that everything should be legal as a matter of principle.  Those on the left might support this idea because of their own discomfort with the War on Drugs, particularly its effects on non-whites.  There’s also the seductive example of Portugal, which decriminalized mere possession of hard drugs (while still retaining punishment for other drug-related activity) with some positive results.  I’m always cautious in accepting a small, generally homogeneous European country’s model as applicable to the United States, however (see also Iceland and education).  In spite of these persuasive forces, I still can’t help but think that the boogeyman of the ease of overdosing on a drug like heroin—or even dying during your first experience with the drug—will be enough to fight off libertarian arguments.    Likelihood = 20%

6.  Criminalizing hate speech – We take our right to free speech as a given in the United States, but, in other parts of the world, speech restrictions are the norm.  Anti-blasphemy laws are common, as are laws criminalizing or censoring criticism of the government or national symbols.  Even among Western-style democracies, though, we’re unusual.  Aside from Japan[3], most democratic, industrialized nations outside the United States have restrictions on “offensive” speech that range from significant to moderate.  Canada and Europe have criminalized forms of hate speech for years.  Some left-leaning intellectuals and academics who otherwise support free expression nonetheless believe that hate speech should not be protected by the First Amendment.  The problem I see with this is that most of the people pushing for the banning of hate speech are also the people who have the most expansive definition of what constitutes “offensive” expression.  That’s a dangerous combination.  Consider how free speech is treated on college campuses, or how the media reacts with tacit approval when someone loses his livelihood after expressing an “offensive” opinion or unwittingly using a poor choice of wording.  The take-home point is that there’s something like a consensus among elites that sacrificing territory at the edges of free speech is a worthy sacrifice if it leads to the expression of fewer ideas those elites find to be offensive.  Fortunately, the First Amendment serves as a fairly strong shield against any measures to put those feelings into practice outside of academia.  Absent an earth-shattering Supreme Court case in the next two decades, this will very likely not come to pass.  However, the force of the notion of restricting speech in a private context, thanks to the dominance of HR departments, lawyers, and special-interest groups, will continue to strengthen.  Likelihood = 15%

7. Further marginalization of religion – This one overlaps a bit with #6 in that it touches upon First Amendment principles.  The distinction is that, unlike free speech jurisprudence, the general trend of religion cases has been toward legal acceptance of stronger barriers between government and theism.  Even though a huge majority of Americans say they believe in God, the fact that’s somewhat obscured is that, while support remains wide, it isn’t quite as deep as it was a couple of generations ago.  That’s significant because I don’t believe it will take a an outright rejection of religion for an erosion of religious liberties to occur.  Apathy will be enough.  Most people like me—people who go to church once or twice a year, who aren’t particularly religious, but who still believe in God—won’t be the ones willing to fight that battle.  Again, we return to the issue of who has more at stake in the conflict.  That’s why strident atheists or those who believe strongly in the total separation of church and state don’t have to reach a huge number of supporters to achieve their critical mass.  Having said all that, they still have to deal with the First Amendment.  Even with the trends breaking in their favor, excising religion from American culture through the law is probably impossible in the short-term.  One thing that will begin to change will be more agnostics, atheists, or non-religious theists being elected to public office.  Partially as a result, we’ll hear something from at least a few legislators (as opposed to mere interest groups or plaintiffs) about symbolic measures like getting “In God We Trust” off of currency or removing “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance within the next generation, but anything beyond that is a stretch.  Likelihood = 25%

8. Full amnesty for all illegal immigrants – This is one of the easier calls on the list.  Two forces are at work that will give this the needed momentum sooner rather than later.  First, there’s the clear demographic shift.  Hispanics are now the largest minority in the United States.  The percentage of the overall population that is Hispanic has nearly tripled since 1980.  Given that this segment of the population is overwhelmingly dissatisfied with even President Obama’s handling of immigration and deportation matters, it stands to reason that they won’t suddenly begin to support stronger border controls anytime soon.  The second force is the irresistible urge politicians have to pander.  Pandering to minority groups is the easiest form of the practice.  So, whereas politicians today can still get traction by claiming to be tough on immigration, or at least claiming that they’ll push for immigration reform, that probably won’t even be an option in another ten years.  I’m almost certain we’ll get some form of amnesty (or an equivalent practice, possibly euphemistically-named so as not to upset conservative voters).  Likelihood = 90%

9. Unprecedented forms of wealth redistribution – You can call the current resentment of the wealthy whatever you like, but, whether you reject the term “class warfare” or not, there’s a clear message being drummed into our collective heads: The wealthy have “too much,” they’re to be resented for that fact, and many of our nation’s problems would be solved if they would simply give it to people who have less.  A commentary on the propriety of that view may be fodder for another column, but the important thing to note here is that many Americans—especially young people—have bought it.  So, before the pendulum swings back the other way, I think we’ll have some very aggressive income redistribution policies in place, ranging from obvious things like higher income tax on the very wealthy to other measures like quasi-socialist student loan repayment plans.  In the 1980′s and 90′s, the presumption was strongly with right-leaning principles regarding income-earning, hard work, etc.  This was a shift from the late 60′s and 70′s mentality.  Likewise, we’re now entering a period where financial problems are viewed as systemic and inescapable in the absence of government intervention.  The wealthy (in the abstract) and successful companies and institutions are seen as the problem, not the potential solution.  Feelings will shift back again eventually, but, until they do, the rich will take some lumps to an undetermined extent.  The only thing mitigating against this is the increasingly short American attention span.  Likelihood = 75%

Of course, this list is by no means exhaustive.  But these could be several of the topics about which the cable news (or streaming equivalent) panelists and pundits (or their robotic equivalents) will be screaming in the year 2018 or 2025 or 2032.

See you there, mis amigos.

__________________

[1] And, to take the metaphor a step further: Let’s say the best food in the world is considered to be lobster.  Eventually, you and your friends eat all the lobster.  No more lobster.  Your kids will still be hungry, even though you’ve eaten all the lobster.  And, no matter what, they’ll believe that whatever it is they’re eating is just as good as lobster.  Why?  Because they have to in order to give their lives meaning.  No one wants to believe that the objectively important things predated their birth, so they’ll make whatever is happening at the time subjectively important.

[2] A good example of this is anti-smoking regulations.  We’ve known about the health risks of smoking since the late 50′s (if not earlier), but we didn’t collectively begin to make major pushes to ban smoking in many different kinds of locales until the decline in the percentage of smokers crossed a certain threshold that allowed for the political expedience of that sort of reform.  Put simply, if too many people belong to a group that will resist a particular reform, it becomes exceedingly difficult to do it.  Even when smoking was known to be a health hazard, there were too many people who participated in the activity (or who were culturally accepting of it) to push too hard against that group.  Where the critical mass is for a given issue depends as much on attitudes by the majority about the topic as it does the number of people in the minority.  To wit, it’s much easier for the non-smoking majority to condone (or at least stomach) condemnation of the minority in this instance than it would be if the minority in question were designated by some characteristic that would be more sympathetic, such as mental illness or poverty.

[3] Which makes sense, because we essentially wrote their constitution for them in 1946.

This is apparently an especially attractive offer for mutant clientele:

As an FYI to you youngsters, giant lenses were popular in the 80′s.

He’s got an unmistakable look of satisfaction on his face that says “Hmm!  Not too shabby!”

Because of his bizarre facial configuration, this misshapen sideshow washout’s ears have to pull double duty when it comes to accommodating his giant (but reasonably-priced!) spectacles.

Also, if you did have two sets of eyes—both of which required glasses—would you really go with two different styles?  I feel like doubling up on the same frames draws slightly less attention to your unfortunate situation.

Personally, and I say this as the proud owner of a fivehead, I would go with nondescript frames for the lower eyes, and a Bret-Michaels-style giant bandana up top, possibly working in the cowboy hat combo.  Of course, the bandana is essentially a blindfold at that point, but so be it.

Logistical nightmare.  Also an actual nightmare.

Yet, neither lost his appetite for the stage.  In fact, they joined forces to play the characters in a two-man Broadway production of “A Steady Rain.”  The play follows the complicated lives of two Chicago police officers.  It received strong reviews upon its debut, broke the record for highest weekly gross by a non-musical, and drew interest from Steven Spielberg for a movie adaptation.

However, the play’s original run will likely be best remembered for an unfortunate (but funny) incident involving a cell phone.

The two characters grapple with several personal and professional issues during the course of the play.  There’s one moment in particular when Jackman’s character is explaining that he’s haunted by a decision he made on the job that led to the death of a young boy.  He’s recounting for the audience that he’s unable to sleep, because, whenever he attempts to do so, he sees the face of the boy who was murdered.

In the midst of this very intense moment during a September 23rd, 2009 performance, this happened:

You can see an even longer, more awkward version here, at the TMZ website.

Of note is the fact that neither man broke character.  To that point, Jackman handled the situation with about as much grace as is possible under those circumstances.  Some reports said he reacted “with anger,” but, in hindsight, it seems more like humor delivered in a voice entirely consistent with the character he was playing at the time.

Jackman later discussed the incident in an interview with Katie Couric:

In an increasingly self-centered world in which the idea of being disconnected from a ubiquitous information stream is anathema to many, it was probably inevitable that something like this would happen at such a high-profile play.  Furthermore, the person to whom the phone belonged was in such embarrassed (or narcissistic) denial that he wouldn’t even turn his phone off when afforded the opportunity.

It’s also somehow fitting that the someone illegally created the recording that revealed all of this.

Unrelated “programming note” – No SitCombat this week, as 30 Rock is “unopposed.”  The feature may or may not return next season.  We’ll see.

But the good news may not end there.  An article I read last weekend suggested that the playoff system may be in place even earlier than we initially anticipated!

Specifically: 1986.

Four-team playoff?  Check!  Revenue sharing among all top-level schools?  Check!  Bowl chairmen opposed to the system on the grounds that “everyone wins” with bowls?  Check!  Networks willing to bid 10-to-14 million for the title game rights?  Che—wait.  Million?

I guess a few things do change.

I will now commence holding my breath . . .

All of that remains to be seen. On the SitCombat front, the Office put together a strong episode that toppled 30 Rock from the perch upon which it sat for an unprecedented nine consecutive weeks. Will the Office be able to start a streak of its own by continuing with a strong final run of episodes? Or will 30 Rock return to form and reclaim the crown from its fellow NBC series?

This was SitCombat for May 10, 2012:

30 Rock (NBC) – “The Return of Avery Jessup”

Tonight’s Episode: Jack suspects Avery wasn’t faithful after she makes her long-awaited return from imprisonment in North Korea, Jenna struggles to find a sponsor for her wedding due to accent issues, and Liz and Criss

Good Stuff: Korean meat? Deflated kickballs . . . “At my age, we may have to get an Asian plant, or accept an older plant with some behavioral issues” . . . “A wedding is a simple and beautiful ceremony, where an old man and a crying girl get pushed into the coupling shed” . . . “It’s only a dream wedding?  Thank God!  I did NOT want to attend!” . . . Jack googling Scott Scottsman . . . “I didn’t wear your nightgowns. If they seem stretched out, it’s because you’re remembering wrong” . . . “I’ve been writing a sex column for Cosmo.  Cosmo is my fourteen-year-old neighbor.  He doesn’t know ANYTHING” . . . Liz calls French kissing “French-Canadian kissing” when it bums everyone out . . . Ok, the Kim-Jong Un footage of him winning the NBA title included the following: Un playing one-on-five; His five opponents all wearing what appeared to be Kobe Bryant masks; Un ignoring basic basketball rules; Un using a ladder to dunk . . . Liz treating Criss like a 50′s housewife . . . CrissPoints, including points for “talking to neighbors so I don’t have to,” “listening to me describe my dream,” “absolute silence during Celebrity Apprentice,” and “enthusiasm for CrissPoints system” . . . CrissPoints rewards include “Dinner Out” (10 points), “Liz will wear silk undertrunks” (30 points), and “Food sharing” (300 points) . . . “It is avan with acar engine, Liz!” . . . “It’s stressingyou out? Of course, because you’re the person who has tokrang that plant for nine months,poop it, and then go back to work to support both of you!” . . . By the way, Ithink that “Krang” line was a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reference (see pic at bottom), but I’m not sure.  I suspect that Tina Fey didn’t write that particular joke if so. Seems more like a bit crafted by the fictional Frank Rositano . . . “I once did a hundred takes and still couldn’t say the word ‘incorrigible.’  Great!  NOW I get it!  Siri!  Bring Jessica Tandy back to life!” . . . “I have someone inside me, too…it’s a bath toy of a scuba diver” . . . Liz’s one-hour pop culture rap being shut down after five seconds . . . Greta Van Susteren eats hot dogs like Slimer . . . Mayor BOOmberg . . . off-brandheelz.com

Non-good Stuff: The “Oh thank you, they’re from Italy” joke from Jack was very reminiscent of a bunch of Jenna jokes from this season.  That’s basically all I’ve got this week.

Line of the Night: “I had an erotic dream about an adult Dora the Explorer…I took her on a balcony in Madrid above the Plaza Mayor…she had flowers in her hair…” – Jack, wistfully making a nocturnal admission.

Overall: The best moments weren’t as great as those from a couple of episodes this season, but there were no real weak spots (I had to stretch to come up with any non-good stuff).  That’s not to say there weren’t some hilarious lines and bits.  This was a very consistent, well-written episode.  I sometimes complain when all of the supporting players aren’t used, but I can’t argue with the results in this case.  And all three plots worked well.  The only one that didn’t lead to a definitive conclusion was Liz / Criss, but I suspect that was by design.  Great episode.

GRADE: A

The Office (NBC) – “Free Family Portrait Studio”

Tonight’s Episode: Big changes are afoot at Dunder Mifflin, and Dwight offers free family portraits for the DM team.

Good Stuff: “He’s searching out younger gays” . . . “It gets better, but is also gets vastly more complicated” . . . “That guy? He looks just like you!” . . . The tear-a-way velcro suit prank . . . “Now he’s trying to get me to bring my children into work. I think it’s fair to be cautious” . . . I liked Andy faking being desperate and broke . . . Dwight trying to get Angela’s baby’s DNA . . . Andy eating the soup off of his sleeve . . . “You really think she’s going to leave a guy who owns his own restaurant for a dude who ate his own restaurant?” . . . Ok, I have to admit, “Happy Birthday to Gabe!” might have been the hardest I laughed at either show this week . . . Ryan’s sign saying he’ll wait for Kelly forever, and the follow-up sign a few minutes later wherein he wants to meet up with a blonde in a “missed connection” scenario . . . Robert lamenting the inclusion of cocoanut flavoring in the energy drink . . . “I’m Bob.  Bob Kazimakis” . . . “How dare you play the Bard card!” . . . Robert leaving to become a mentor for college-aged European gymnasts.

Non-good Stuff: Angela wouldn’t notice the change in license number of a car she’s been following for several minutes? . . . Why, oh, why would Andy hire Nellie back? Especially in a terrible non-useful capacity? Very contrived, and not a welcome turn of events.

Line(s) of the Night:
DARRYL: (After tasting energy drink) “What flavor is that?”
ASIAN WAREHOUSE WORKER: “Coconut penis.”
DARRYL: “The coconut is . . . pretty subtle.”

Overall: Comedy-wise, this was a solid show. I really enjoyed the use of Gabe, including a quasi-meta joke about how everyone hates him. This is an example of a character I don’t like being used in a way that turns his comedic impact into a positive. Great writing there. Unfortunately, the writers will have to work really hard to keep Nellie in the mix in a way that adds to the show. That brings me to the plot development aspect of this episode. In short, a mixed bag. David Wallace taking over, cutting away the “Sabre” element entirely, happened far more quickly than I suspected. The literal removal of the Sabre sign dripped with not-so-subtle symbolism. I might have an issue with the abruptness of this turn of events were they not so welcome. The big negative I saw was obviously contriving a way to keep Nellie around. Aside from the fact that it’s implausible, I don’t think it helps the show. This wasn’t a bad episode overall, though. The last two have been a major step up from the slump the show had been in during the prior couple of months.

GRADE: B-plus

The aforementioned Krang (left) converses with Shredder.

Final Thoughts: The Office writers are clearly laying groundwork for a series overhaul. That overhaul may wind up simply being a return to basics with a few different characters in the mix (and some old ones gone). Andy seems entrenched now, but, as with most things, that could change. The show seems to have a renewed direction at least. That’s progress. Whether it turns out to be enough to save the show remains to be seen, but I believe things are headed in the right direction for the first time in a while.

Over on 30 Rock, we got another terrific episode that was good enough to beat even a strong effort from the Office. There’s less of a sense of urgency about moving story arcs along, and I have no concerns on that front with 30 Rock. This episode’s distinguishing characteristic was that it had almost no real weaknesses. 30 Rock takes back the crown for now, but, in a shift from a month ago, SitCombat at least seems like an even fight again.

WINNER: 30 Rock (new champion)

This is how democracy is supposed to work.

Voters in North Carolina elevated the state’s ban on same-sex marriage to its constitution this week.  The amendment also added a constitutional ban on civil unions or similar arrangements.  The measure passed by a comfortable margin.

The outcry over Amendment One’s passage, particularly from the young and from the famous, has been forceful and predictable.  This follows in the wake of Proposition 8′s passage (and subsequent legal issues) in California just a couple of years earlier.

I see both sets of events not as diametrically-opposed political outcomes, but as the same: Exercises in self-determination.

What fascinates me about the same-sex marriage movement is not the underlying substantive change, but, rather, the methodology behind it.  The principle question from my perspective is not whether this reform becomes universal (I believe it certainly will, probably within ten years), but how that occurs.

Contrast the Washington and New York examples with what we’ve seen in California. There, a measure passed by referendum amended the state constitution such that only a marriage between a man and woman would be recognized as valid in the state.  Yet, a federal district court determined that defining marriage in such a way violates the Constitution.  Later, a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit affirmed that finding by a 2-1 vote.

To the minds of many proponents of gay marriage rights, the fact that this victory came through judicial means is irrelevant.  Since one of their strategies has been to analogize this battle to that of the (racial) civil rights movement, earning favorable outcomes through the courts isn’t considered problematic.

Moreover, ours is a culture now built on entitled feelings of instant gratification.  Ends, not means, are the most important priority.  We want what we want, we want it now, and it doesn’t matter how that happens.  Therefore, advocates of all sorts of reforms—including this one—care little about how these reforms come to pass, so long as they do.

This is a dangerous path that I’ve discussed elsewhere.

To be clear: Gay marriage is not the danger.  Washington or New York will not be worse off or contribute to the decline of society[1] by allowing same-sex unions, so long as that is the type of society in which the citizens of those states choose to live.

That brings me back to North Carolina.

At issue is a very important principle, and it has little to do directly with gay marriage.  The broad question is whether a people have the right to determine for themselves what sort of society they want to have.  Many on the pro-gay-marriage side would say the answer is a resounding “no,” because a society doesn’t have the right to reject “equality.”

But let’s get real for a minute.

You won’t see this discussed in a print or broadcast outlet of any kind, but the simple truth is that we add and subtract to the list of criteria for equal treatment all the time.  There isn’t some all-encompassing, static value toward which we’re all slowly progressing.  Our views change from generation to generation.  We move in fits and starts, sometimes in one direction, sometimes in the other.

Myopic twenty-somethings will litter your Facebook feed with celebrity quotes and pro-gay memes that appear to make a point that vaguely resembles something intelligent or at least clever.  These platitudes usually fall along the lines of the libertarian notion of “someone else’s marriage won’t hurt your marriage,” the liberal idea that not allowing gay marriage is an assault on equality, or a general attack on some religious doctrinal strawman.  Often, the expression is something like, “Love is love, and no one should be able to stop that!”

But is that really the principle in play?

The fact is that the criteria for inclusion in an equality framework changes.  There are “bad” and “good” “non-bad” lists that we maintain as a society, often not overtly.  A group may move from one list to the other over the course of time, as is happening with gays and lesbians now.  But we focus so much on the group in transition that we lose sight of the fact that the notion of equality for all is simply not what’s being honored.

We believe in equality and beneficial treatment for all members of the non-bad list.  The change that occurs is not a renewed devotion to a grandiose idea of equality (even if that’s what we tell ourselves to feel important or superior).  No, the change is on which side of this invisible line the group at issue belongs.

For example, we still prohibit or sanction relationships involving an adult and a person below the age of consent (which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction), a person and certain relatives, a living person and a dead person, a human and an animal, between a person who already has a spouse and a second potential spouse, and a person who has some sort of ethical or fiduciary duty to another person such that a relationship would create a conflict of interest.  We’re not creating a broad principle of “you should be able to love whomever you want!”[2]  What we’re doing is removing one category of relationship from the list of those we find objectionable.

I’m not making the argument that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of necrophilia or bestiality.  My point is that we’re not really endorsing equality for “all.”  We say we are because it simplifies the argument, making it easier to sell (and easier to make us feel good about ourselves).  Rather, we’re debating whether or not to add another name to our cultural membership rolls.

We’re deciding, in increasing numbers, that gays and lesbians aren’t abhorrent, and that it isn’t necessary to make them societal cast-offs.  By contrast, the rhetoric implicitly hides the “ugly” truth that there will still be cast-offs, even once gay marriage is legal and universal.

This is also a two-way street.  Criteria can slowly migrate from the “non-bad” list to the “bad” list as well.  This may come as a shock to wide-eyed progressives who see this country in a state of perpetual evolution toward their utopian vision of inclusion.

Consider the following: How were homosexuals viewed generally by society forty years ago?  How are they viewed today?  How will they be viewed ten years from now?  By contrast, how were people who smoke or people who eat meat or people who use fossil fuels or devoutly religious people viewed forty years ago?  How are they viewed now?  How will they be viewed in ten or twenty years?

My point is that things go from being “a big deal” to “not a big deal” in just a couple of generations.  Enjoying a nice steak dinner in 1962 would have been a non-starter in a discussion about politics.  Today, it might cause some disapproving scowls from offended vegans.  In another generation, it might be widely considered by a majority of Americans to be downright damaging to the human race.

The positive view of religion and the religious is also weakening.  That wound is partially self-inflicted thanks to fanaticism around the globe, but, even if that fanaticism weren’t present, the devout would still hold less sway over our culture than they did several decades ago.  That, of course, goes hand-in-hand with the rise of the gay rights movement.

Despite an inexhaustible supply of claims to the contrary, not every single argument against gay marriage is purely religious.  However, it is true that most of the arguments are rooted in precepts to which various religious institutions adhere.  As the populace of the country becomes less accepting of moral authority emanating from religious leaders, and more comfortable with moral authority derived from activists in a secular arena, the erosion of support for mores with religious connotations is a natural result.

Having religious faith was once generally viewed as a positive trait by a vast majority of Americans.  That’s now been qualified as “religious faith is good, I guess, so long as I don’t have to hear about it, and so long as it doesn’t interfere with certain issues in the political realm.”  Eventually, we may reach a point where religion is considered an outright negative—a sign of regressive thinking that exists outside of the more “enlightened” mainstream.  A decent number of people (strident atheists; most Gawker commenters) already feel this way.

So, just as our views about certain criteria or groups become more positive, we increasingly view certain other groups in a more unfavorable light.

The other part of that uniquely human behavior is the effort we expend to rationalize.  Even as we tirelessly make subjective judgment calls, we work just as hard to create “objective” principles that justify those decisions.  To cite the most readily-available example, the debate that laid much of the twentieth-century groundwork for the gay rights movement revolved around whether homosexuality was innate.  This always puzzled me, since there are all sorts of innate behaviors or predilections that are nonetheless taboo.  However, that was the rhetorical “foot in the door” that helped begin to change people’s minds about gays and lesbians.  We still see echos of that in more recent times, but it’s no longer the lynchpin of the argument.

This is not to say that the subjective nature of the collective decision to be accepting of a group makes that decision less valid.  But the reality that these decisions are subjective, and the wider understanding of human nature that backs it, makes some of the arguments in support of gay marriage seem ridiculous.  I don’t mean the substance of the arguments, but, rather, how they’re presented.

To wit, a position that was an outlier (at best) fifteen years ago[3] is now referred to as if it’s a self-evident status quo, and that opposite-sex marriage only is the strange and novel concept.  It all feels very revisionist to me, but that’s the tone of the reaction whenever a state passes a measure preserving the exclusivity of opposite-sex marriage.  Proponents of gay marriage usually take to social media to express pretentious sentiments like “embarrassment” with or “being ashamed of” jurisdiction X when their cause suffers a setback.

Why do people speak in these terms?  That’s an easy one.

First, people like to feel important.  Moreover, passion is more seductive than even-keeled  reasonableness.  I also covered this before, but life has much more meaning for most people if they can feel as though their fight is one of good vs. evil, rather than a battle between a variety of ideas over which reasonable people may differ.

Suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you is “hateful” or a “bigot” can be a compelling urge for many.  It endows the believer with a sense of moral superiority and unquestioned righteousness.  It’s empowering to believe your views derive from a greater, higher, absolute truth than those of your opponents.  We should just always be mindful that our children or grandchildren may believe in a different “absolute truth,” and that maybe these truths aren’t so absolute after all.

One aspect of our discourse that has shifted in the last twenty years has been the recasting of domestic issues as “good guys” vs. “bad guys.”  My personal opinion is that, while the internet and the “participation-trophy generation” are both factors, one key point is that we no longer have a large, dangerous, external enemy to oppose.  The Cold War was scary, but it at least served to satisfy much of our human need to feel as if we were in a good vs. evil conflict.  With the USSR gone, we turned our attention to each other.

There have certainly always been heated political conflicts in this country, but, during the Cold War, there was a vague sense of “We may disagree, but, ultimately, we’re all in this together against a common foe who threatens our way of life.”  That returned briefly in the weeks after 9/11/01, but quickly deteriorated into ideological bickering again.

The point is that, without an ideological opponent abroad that we can all agree is (1) evil and (2) a major threat, we must look to our fellow citizens to find the meaning and life-fulfillment that we lost the day the Soviet Union (thankfully) fell.  I think that’s another subtext to all of this.  When we didn’t have a serious threat to our way of life, we had to find one in each other: The notion that those on the right are fighting to keep the “American Way” in the face of those on the left who would try to destroy it just as the Soviets wanted to, while those on the left are battling against a backwards, ignorant, uneducated conservative force that prevents the country from “advancing.”  That’s the narrative the the two sides employ to tilt at their respective windmills.

It’s a shame we have to treat each other this way.  I suppose, though, that it’s a small price to pay for a reduced risk of all-out nuclear war.

What this week has reminded me is that, while we focus so hard on outcomes, the process is worth celebrating.  Even when our side loses, we should be pleased by the fact that we’re able to choose for ourselves the metes and bounds of our society.  This ability is usually more important than where those boundaries come to lie on a given day.

_______

[1] Admittedly, California already is already sort of contributing to the decline of society, but that is happening irrespective of who can marry whom there.
[2] Such slogans are merely that: Slogans. Rhetorical devices used to present broad, easily-accepted phrases to garner support for a particular side of an issue, just as condemning anyone who opposes that position (or anyone who eats Chik-fil-A) as a “bigot” works to serve the same purpose from the other direction.
[3] One of the most fascinating parts of the entire debate over expanding marriage is that the academic push around the turn of the 21st century was as much toward the abolition of marriage as recognized by the government as it was legalizing gay marriage, particularly among libertarians. However, the gay marriage movement eventually picked up momentum and surpassed the anti-marriage movement. I personally believe that the gay marriage movement has prolonged government recognition of marriage. Absent this movement, I think marriage (again, meaning marriage as recognized by the government) would have started disappearing by now, or not too far in the future. As it is, I think it will be around for at least another fifty years. Having said that, I think that the government will eventually start getting out of the marriage business altogether.

1. The coach, local icon P. K. Perrin, discussing the fact that he recruited girl managers as a way to attract more boys to come out for baseball.

2. One of the two girls being referred to as “pretty Vickie” by the author.

3. The other manager, Sharon, saying that she had some misgivings about the job because “I knew I’d feel awkward and like a dummy, and sometimes I do.”

4. Sharon later added, “[The players] treat us ok, but they do tease us a lot.  And everything has to be exactly right for them.  They say we don’t know anything . . . and they’re usually right.”

5. The coach talking about opposing schools offering “all kinds of [trade] deals” for the managers.

But perhaps the best of all is the not-so-subtle symbolism of the picture, in which the managers “help” one of the Manchester players “pick out a bat.”  Of course, maybe any implied vulgarity is solely the result of the forty-year-old photo being filtered through the lurid lens of my twenty-first-century mind.  On the other hand—just look at the title of the article!  My interpretation isn’t that much of a stretch.

We never had managers when I was playing high school football, much less female ones.  They were seen as a distraction.  We did have them in middle school, however.  And, quite frankly, they were.

In any event, it was a simpler time.  I sincerely hope that Sharon was able to overcome her inevitable eating disorder and lead a productive life after high school.

An uncertain future serves as the backdrop for this ongoing battle.  Neither show (nor any of the regulars in NBC’s Thursday night comedy lineup) have been renewed for next season.  Will 30 Rock be back next year?  Will the Office?  Will both be canceled?  If they come back, will we see retooling, especially on the Office?

We just don’t know yet.  But how these final few weeks play out may go a long way in determining the answer.  This was SitCombat for May 3, 2012:

30 Rock (NBC) – “Queen of Jordan 2: The Mystery of the Phantom Pooper”

Tonight’s Episode: As Avery is poised to return to the United States, Jack must address his feelings for Diana for the benefit of the Queen of Jordan cameras.

Good Stuff: “Hello, whoever it is…going to be” . . . “Singer / song reader” . . . Raven-Simone, Senior . . . “Lisa Lampanelli?” . . . “I thought it was very brave of you to pose for Playboy…against Playboy’s wishes” . . . “Please defwink responsibly” . . . Adrien Brody’s acting school?  Unaccredited” . . . “Isn’t this usually a bathroom?” . . . “I really don’t watch much TV. I’m more of a masturbator” . . . Kenneth and the cord . . . The Jack / Liz kiss . . . The cord accusing Kenneth of racism.

Non-good Stuff: Why does Kenneth appear to be a page again in one early scene? . . . The Rus / Gus thing wasn’t a great vein to tap twice . . . A John Mark Karr reference = Too obscure, too untimely . . . Just not sure we needed another Queen of Jordan episode.

Line of the Night: “Is this one of those ridiculous reality shows like Ken Burns’ Jazz? Disgusting.” – Diana, reacting to the presence of the camera crew in Jack’s office

Overall: I wasn’t really in sync with this one. I thought the first Queen of Jordan episode was surprisingly good.  I’m unconvinced we needed a second one.  I think that’s particularly true since last week’s show was also a “gimmicky” (but outstanding) episode.  For the first time in a long time, 30 Rock didn’t work for me.  It was still better than most things on television.  It simply wasn’t one of the better episodes of this particular series.

GRADE: C-plus

The Office (NBC) – “Turf War”

Tonight’s Episode: Robert accidentally closes a branch office while drunk, and Dwight and Jim scramble to scavenge the clients.  Andy makes a play to get his job back.

Good Stuff: “No, Jim…the butt, in his butt” . . . The knowing, gleeful look on Ryan and Creed’s faces when Robert says “Columbian whites” . . . I liked the Robert called Pam out on her BS. She’s gotten a little big for her britches . . . Toby embracing the character of Lloyd Gross . . . “I’ll still be talking about geishas, LONG past their bedtime. You know, I trained as one…” . . . Dan Castellaneta is always a treat . . . “I think you’re gonna need to have an Asian fetish, yeah. It’ll be upsetting if you don’t” . . . Andy’s wireless password is “eatpraylove” . . . Dwight using his belt to bar the door, then not being able to keep his pants up . . . “He said ‘Salvation’…no last name” . . . I loved Robert’s response to Andy trying to blackmail him.

Non-good Stuff: The open was just so-so . . . Pam is annoying and gets in the way of comedy . . . Stop trying to make me feel sympathetic toward Nellie . . . Nellie complains about Robert being obsessed with sex, but previously hit on him repeatedly to try to curry favor.

Line of the Night: “Chair, lamp, plant, table leg, Jim’s leg.” – Dwight, listing the things in the conference room he had identified he could use to hit Harry

Overall: This episode of the Office did certain things well that this show hasn’t done in quite some time.  For one thing, the plot and the comedy were largely complementary, rather than incongruous (e. g. Andy’s desperation advanced the story, rather than simply made him seem pathetic and pitiful).  There was a lot of good, and only a little bad.  A stronger open would have pushed this into “A” territory.

GRADE: B-plus

Final Thoughts: The Office has finally broken 30 Rock’s stranglehold on SitCombat, and it’s no wonder—it seems like the show finally has an idea about where it’s headed.  David Wallace possibly buying the company and installing Andy in an executive position.  Dwight and Jim and everyone else perhaps being out of jobs if Robert sticks around.  The writers have laid out a good roadmap about where the plot may take viewers generally while also maintaining unpredictability.  This is a great step.  I have my own ideas about what needs to happen on the show to continue the series, but the big-picture idea is that the possibility of continuing the show (from a narrative arc standpoint) now seems attainable.  Couple all of that with some good, work-related comedy, and this episode was a winner.  I’m excited to see where the Office goes next week, and it’s been a long time since I felt that way.

WINNER: The Office (new champion)

Download: The Axis Of Ego Podcast 05-03-12

Note the tagline of the film on the left, and the title of the film on the right: