With all that we have to worry about these days, nearly everyone appreciates a good burst of laughter.
Back in the day, didn’t Reader’s Digest tell us that “laughter is the best medicine”?
Predating the computer, the laugh track may be the first instance of artificial intelligence being used and hoisted on us.
If so, the first — and last — laugh is on us!
Even two rooms away from the living room television, the “laugh track” stands out as the annoying absurdity it was and still is, thanks to the Internet and sites like YouTube: it’s called “canned laughter,” where people in the audience supposedly split their sides laughing.
If you don’t know (or remember) the sickening sound of canned laughter, simply Google “laugh track sound effect” and play it for laughs or to feel like a laughing stock.
The use of canned laughter and other audience reactions was pioneered by American sound engineer Charles “Charley” Douglas, whose laugh track became a standard in mainstream USA … dominating most primetime sitcoms and other comedies from the late 1950s to the late 1970s.
While Douglas laughed all the way to the bank.
If a joke didn’t get the desired chuckle, Douglas inserted a barrel of laughs to encourage the live audience — including Seinfeld’s — to laugh.
This technique became known as “sweetening,” in which prerecorded laughter was used to enhance the response of studio audiences if they didn’t react as strongly as desired: howling with (canned) laughter.
Talk about manipulation!
With the demise of sitcoms and live studio audiences, laugh tracks decreased and gave way to the development of “stereophonic” laughter in the 1980s.
Researching this piece, I came across someone laughing at all of us who fell prey to this gimmick: “I don’t know how you can watch those old sitcoms,” she wagged. “Everything about them annoys me … starting with the canned laughter.”
Scientists have noted the similarity in forms of laughter induced by tickling among various primates, suggesting that laughter derives from a common origin which includes laughing in someone’s face.
Nonetheless, laughter isn’t always funny and can lead to some serious health problems. One woman with a racing heart syndrome collapsed and died after a period of intense laughter. Some other risks are: Protrusion of abdominal hernias — side-splitting laughter or laughing fit to burst. A quick intake of breath during laughing can cause foreign bodies to be inhaled. It can trigger asthma attacks, incontinence, and headaches.
CBS researchers said their search was limited to laughter without exploring related behavior such as chuckles or grins.
“We infer that laughter in any form carries a low risk of harm and may be beneficial.”
So, the next time you can’t stop laughing, go right ahead … with a wee bit of caution.
Because s/he who laughs last, laughs best.
LOL!
Pastor, professor, publisher, and journalist Bruce H. Joffe is an award-winning author of magazine features, academic research, journal articles, self-help manuals, and newspaper stories. His nine books deal with international (intercultural) living, progressive theology, gender studies, “social” politics, our vulnerabilities, marketing, and the media.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
Formal group photograph of the Supreme Court as it was been comprised on June 30, 2022 after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the Court. The Justices are posed in front of red velvet drapes and arranged by seniority, with five seated and four standing.
Seated from left are Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito and Elena Kagan.
Standing from left are Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
I am especially concerned about the growth and reach of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) into politics and other matters which the Founders had no intention for the Court to meddle. Unlike the balance of power allegorized by a troika, the merging and morphing of the USA’s three branches of government into an increasingly ultra-right orientation is dangerous to our civil rights and the Constitution. Especially when the highest court in the land is integrally involved.
Last week it was revealed that Justice Samuel Alito had, at two of his homes, flown flags associated with the “Stop the Steal” movement. The movement falsely asserts that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump (by) Joe Biden, editorialized HuffPost Politics.
Barring other explanations, it would seem to be a clear conflict to the justice’s mandate to be — or at least appear — impartial and unbiased. Justices have certainly recused themselves from cases for less. But Alito has made no moves to suggest that he would bow out of the ruling on either relevant case, the newspaper continued.
And of course, this follows last year’s spate of stories suggesting that some justices had acted unethically, accepting lavish gifts and vacations from conservative influencers. Alito and Clarence Thomas, in particular, admitted to attending luxury vacations on billionaires’ dimes, which they defended by citing court disclosure guidelines that say personal hospitality from friends is permitted. Public disapproval prompted the high court to adopt new and clearer ethics guidelines — though they still lack an enforcement mechanism.
When put all together, HuffPost concluded, it’s hard to shake the feeling that the justices are now just doing what they please, secure in the knowledge that no one has the power, or the will, to enforce any consequences for them.
Can SCOTUS be stopped? Are there any limits to the powers it exercises? Can it, legally, be overruled?
Yes!
Here are some of the potential reins on the US Supreme Court:
> SCOTUS can reconsider and overturn previous rulings it has made, as in its recent Dobbs decision … and many others.
> When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, its decisions can be altered by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
> According to the League of Women Voters, with enough political will and a willing President, it is within Congress’ authority to limit the US Supreme Court’s power by restricting what type of appeals it can accept. Theoretically, Congress could therefore limit the Court’s ability to restrict or remove certain fundamental rights by preventing it from hearing cases about them in the first place.
> Given the unlikelihood of an admission of impropriety from any Supreme Court justice, a more extreme avenue available to lawmakers who would seek to hold them accountable for compromising the neutrality and legitimacy of the court: impeachment. Over the country’s history, 15 federal judges have been impeached, and eight removed from office; others resigned in the wake of scandal instead. So one thing, at least, is clear: Unlike for presidents, there is ample precedent for firing federal judges via impeachment. Article III states that these judges “hold their office during good behavior,” which means they have a lifetime appointment, except under very limited circumstances. Article III judges can be removed from office through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. The only Justice to be impeached was Justice Samuel Chase in 1805.
> The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.
> Although the Court’s decisions cannot be appealed to any authority (as it is the final judicial arbiter in the United States on matters of federal law), the Court may consider appeals from the highest state courts or from federal appellate courts.
It is this last measure that most intrigues me. More than one newscaster’s panels have mentioned — merely mentioned, without going into any real detail — that it is within the power of a “coalition” of lower courts to question and arbitrate the roles played and decisions made by SCOTUS.
I, for one, would love to learn more about this!
The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American “experiment in democracy” with the oldest written Constitution still in force.
Pastor, professor, publisher, and journalist Bruce H. Joffe is the award-winning author of magazine features, academic research, journal articles, self-help manuals, and newspaper bylines. His eight books deal with international (intercultural) living, interfaith theology, gender studies, “social” politics, marketing, and the media.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
Recently, a member of my spiritual community contacted me privately, seeking my advice. Married for years in a committed and loving relationship, he now found himself attracted to and caring about another. Is that a sin, he wanted to know, and what should(n’t) he do about it? The plot thickened because all three people involved were of the same sex. My interlocutor found himself increasingly thinking about the other. Although “nothing” had happened between the two, he was suffering pangs of guilt. What could I say to him? How could I help?
Takeaways:
• Biblical adultery is restricted to a man having sexual relations with another man’s wife. It occurs only within the confines and context of marriage.
• Jesus addresses adultery specifically as a matter between a man and a woman.
• “Sin” is open to many interpretations, understandings, and translations.
• Adam was the first of many Bible men to have more than one wife.
• The Bible appears to support “polygyny” (one man, two or more women in marriage), but not “polyandry” (one woman, two or more men in marriage).
• Although the Hebrew scriptures describe numerous examples of polygamy among God’s devotees, most Christian groups have historically rejected the practice.
• Polygamy is illegal and criminalized in every country in North and South America, including all 50 U.S. states. However, in February 2020, the Utah House and Senate reduced the punishment for consensual polygamy, which had previously been classified as a felony, to roughly equivalent to a traffic ticket.
Starting with the Seventh Commandment – “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14) – the Bible is implicit in its condemnation of adultery. Later, in Leviticus 20:10, punishment for being involved in adultery was mandated: “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife — with the wife of his neighbor — both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.”
Notice, please, that adultery in this passage is restricted to a man having sexual relations (or whatever constituted “adultery” back then) with another man’s wife.
According to Easton’s Bible Dictionary, the simple meaning of adultery is marital infidelity. An adulterer is a man who has illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman is an adulteress.
And what did Jesus say about adultery?
John 8:3-11 (NIV) tells this story: The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared, “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
What, I wonder, was Jesus writing on the ground?
Elsewhere, in Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Jesus, too, addresses adultery here as specifically a matter between a man and a woman. What about same-sex adultery, as my congregant had asked?
I don’t know about you but, for me, denying physical attraction to someone is one of those beatitudes that is easier to preach about than to practice. Like loving those who hate you. Not resisting an evil person. Praying for those who persecute you. Turning the other cheek. Loaning money to those who ask. Being perfect. And walking that extra mile.
All take a spirit and soul bigger than mine.
My own shortcomings reminded me not to rush to judgment when responding to the questions I had been asked. After all, didn’t I look beyond the literal when it comes to the larger and/or metaphorical meaning of the scriptures? What conclusions would I reach, I wondered, if I scratched beneath the surface of these verses about marriage and marital fidelity?
First, I needed to wrestle with the idea of sin. What is sin and to be sinful?
The dictionary offers two definitions: (1) an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law, and (2) to offend against (God, a person, or a principle).The Encyclopedia Britannica says that sin is a moral evil as considered from a religious standpoint. In Judaism and Christianity, sin is regarded as the deliberate and purposeful violation of the will of God. Elsewhere, sin is called “a corrupted state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God.” In the Old Testament, the word for sin is “khata,” meaning “to fail” or “to miss the goal.”
According to the Torah, the standard noun for sin is ḥeṭ (verb: hata), meaning to “miss the mark” or “sin.” The word avon is often translated as “iniquity”, i.e. a sin done out of moral failing. The word pesha, or “trespasss,” means a sin done out of rebelliousness. The word resha refers to an act committed with wicked intent.
How did Jesus work around sin?
In John 8:34, he tells the unbelieving Pharisees, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.”
Paul, as usual, is conflicted:
“I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.” (Romans 7:15-20)
The Bible seems to indicate that there are degrees of sin—that some are more detestable to God than others (Deuteronomy 25:16; Proverbs 6:16-19). However, when it comes to the “eternal consequences of sin,” all are the same. Every sin, every act of rebellion, leads to condemnation and eternal death (Romans 6:23), Paul insists.
As always, I look beneath and beyond the words written in a different time to people whose culture was different than ours, and then transcribed from oral traditions, redacted, and translated from one dialect to other languages. Similarly, I’m hesitant to accept the Apostle Paul’s edicts as gospel, or to explain one dubious scripture by citing another.
Consider, for example, this egregious assessment of marriage rites and rituals proposed by Paul – aka Saul the Pharisee – who, to the best of our knowledge, hadn’t been in any relationship with a woman, let alone married to one:
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” (Ephesians 5:22–27)
Similarly, I take with a large grain of salt Paul’s further pronouncements on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:2–5:
“But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
Curiously, apart from Paul, the Bible has very little to say about the specifics of marriage and adultery, per se, although they’re inherent to civil and ecclesiastical dictates. When searching the scriptures and religious traditions about marriage and marital infidelity, we open a Pandora’s box of conflicting facts and folklore … especially when adding polyamorous relationships to the equation.
God, many believe, designed marriage as the place for the expression of human sexuality. Sex within marriage has both relational and spiritual benefits. It also has the practical benefit of reducing the temptation to engage in sex outside of marriage.
Sometimes … but not always.
Research from the past two decades shows that between 20 and 25 percent of married men cheat and between 10 and 15 percent of married women cheat, according to Professor Nicholas Wolfinger, a professor of family and consumer studies at the University of Utah.
Written by Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter is a dark romantic story about a woman and her minister who had an affair and are punished by Puritan society.
The institutional church believes adultery, divorce, remarriage after divorce, marriage without the intent to transmit life, polygamy, incest, child abuse, free union, and trial marriage are sins against the dignity of marriage:
“As first described in Genesis and later affirmed by Jesus, marriage is a covenantal relationship between a man and a woman. This lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship brings children into the world and thus sustains the stewardship of the earth. Biblical marriage — marked by faithfulness, sacrificial love, and joy — displays the relationship between God and his people,” posits the National Association of Evangelicals.
Matthew quotes Jesus as saying: “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of porneia (sexual immorality), makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31-32).
Of this I am certain: According to the Bible, adultery only occurs within the confines and context of marriage. Far less sure, however, were Bible “givens” that I had overlooked or not fully comprehended because they made me uneasy based on today’s social norms.
Polygamy, for instance …
In the Bible, it is written of Adam that, “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’” (Genesis 2:18). In this instance, help meet means a help that is meet (proper) for Adam, and the term has since been transformed into helpmeet, or helpmate.
God, it follows, brings to Adam all the livestock, birds, and beasts of the field. None of these, however, proves to be “fit for” the man. “Fit for him” or “matching him” (ESV footnote), scholars maintain, is not the same as “like him,” providing a plausible reason that God didn’t bring Adam another man.
“Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up!” we’re told in Ecclesiastes 4:9-10. The wise person works side by side with another, enjoying a good reward and finding help in times of need.
In Genesis 2:23–24 we read that, “Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
Notice that it is Adam, not God, who is speaking. And remember that there is more than one creation story! Christians try to use Adam and Eve as a prototype for how all marriages should be. The problem is that the ancient Hebrews did not interpret the story of Adam and Eve in this manner.
For instance, how many wives did Adam have? According to some sources, he had two. Although not mentioned directly in the Bible, according to Jewish lore, Lilith, Adam’s first wife, explains the two contradictory versions of Creation within the book of Genesis.
One of the rabbinic folklore books, the medieval Alphabet of ben Sirach, gives an alternate version of the story of Adam and Eve. In this version, God decides it is bad for Adam to be alone, so he makes a woman named Lilith. Lilith and Adam have an argument about their sexual relations, and Lilith leaves Adam.
Unlike Eve, who we’re told was made from one of Adam’s ribs, and who agreed to be subservient to Adam, Lilith was made from the same clay as Adam, as his equal, and she refused to be obedient to Adam … which is why she was ejected from the Garden of Eden. In other words, Lilith was a very modern woman, a feminist’s woman, and the authors of the Bible chose to leave her out, setting Adam along another path, the path of the Patriarchy.
Adam was the first of many to have more than one wife or concubine. The list includes such notable patriarchs and kings as Esau (Gen 26:34; 28:6-9), Jacob (Gen 29:15-28), Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:1-8), David (1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13-16), and Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3).
Abraham had a second wife, Hagar, who played an important role as his wife and mother of Ishmael. As such, she is an essential figure within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In Genesis 16, she is introduced as an Egyptian slave woman who belongs to Abraham’s wife, Sarah.
Jacob ended up having four wives out of whom came the tribes of Israel. Hannah was a baron wife out of a plural marriage; King David had several, and his son, Solomon had 700 wives and many concubines—including the Queen of Sheba! The only wife of King Solomon known by her personal name was Naamah, the Ammonite princess, mother of Rehoboam, heir to the throne.
“King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, ‘You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.’ Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.” (I Kings 11: 1-3)
Miriam and Aaron were jealous because Moses had two wives and more of his attention would be taken by the newly married woman. (Numbers 12:1-10)
This is what God said to David after he cheated on his wives with Bathsheba: “I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!” (1 Sam. 12:8)
Although some Christians argue that polygamy is a sin because it’s adultery. the Bible appears to support “polygyny” (one man, two or more women in marriage), but not “polyandry.” Women could have only one husband, and certainly no male concubines. Women who had sex with a man other than their legal husband were considered adulteresses, and those men were thought of as illegally robbing her husband of his possession: his wife.
“I first started to question what I was being taught at Bible college when I was in my 1&2 Samuel class, and the teacher kept saying that polygamy is a sin. I raised my hand and asked where in the Bible it said that specifically. He didn’t have an answer so he said he would ask the director of the Bible college and get back to me,” a classmate of mine in seminary said. “So, next class I raised my hand again and asked if he had an answer. He flatly said, ‘nowhere in the Bible does it say that polygamy is a sin; but it is not recommended because it can detract from a person’s focus on God.’ And then he said, ‘It’s also currently illegal in this country and God calls us to follow the laws of the land.’ Then he changed the topic. The more I thought about it, the more I realized modern Christians were trying to insert their own biased views on monogamy into the Scriptures.”
The debate focuses almost exclusively on polygyny (one man having more than one wife) and not polyandry (one woman having more than one husband), as polyandry is specifically outlawed by the Hebrew Bible’s laws of adultery, which narrowly define adultery as the practice of polyandry by or with an already married (or betrothed) female.
Ashkenazi and Sephardic rabbis passed decrees in the Middle Ages forbidding polygamy and the law in Israel, which is mostly secular in any case, does not recognize or permit it. With the founding of the modern State of Israel, a number of Yemenite Jewish men immigrated with their multiple wives. The government allowed them to keep the wives they brought with them but did not allow them to take on additional wives. This was done out of compassion for the wives, who were already dependent on their husbands.
Technically, polygamy is still allowed in Judaism (since it is allowed in the Torah), but if a man wants to take on a second wife, he needs to have a petition allowing him to do this signed by 100 rabbis. In principle, this should be done only under dire circumstances. The best example I heard is that of a man whose wife is institutionalized due to a severe mental illness. Since Jewish law forbids divorce under these circumstances, the man could be allowed to take on a second wife. Note that in such a case he would no longer be living with the first wife. The Orthodox rabbi who explained this said that it should apply only in the case of a young couple, especially when the man is responsible for raising his children. It should not be used for an older man whose wife develops Alzheimers late in life.
Judaism has never allowed a woman to have two husbands simultaneously.
Although the Hebrew scriptures describe numerous examples of polygamy among devotees to God, most Christian groups have historically rejected the practice and upheld monogamy alone as normative. Nevertheless, some Christian groups in different periods have practiced, or currently do practice, polygamy. Some Christians actively debate whether the New Testament or Christian ethics allows or forbids polygamy, and there are several Christian views on the “Old Covenant.”
The debate focuses almost exclusively on polygyny (one man having more than one wife) and not polyandry (one woman having more than one husband), as polyandry is specifically outlawed by the Hebrew Bible’s laws of adultery, which narrowly define adultery as the practice of polyandry by or with an already married (or betrothed) female.
Mormon men can lawfully have only one wife. The practice of polygamy, the marriage of more than one woman to the same man, was practiced by Church members from the 1830s until the early 1900s.
Marriage is a sacred institution in Islam with very important objectives. In most cases, the objective is achieved through monogamy. In certain situations, however, a man is allowed to marry more than one wife, with the condition that he treats his wives with justice and takes the decision with Taqwa or “God Consciousness.” Verse 3 of Surah 4 An-Nisa (Women) declares that a man may marry up to four women under specific (and debated) circumstances. In observance of this text, many Muslim countries allow a man to have up to four wives. However, many also require the man to state whether he plans to be monogamous or polygamous as part of the marriage agreement with his first wife, and if she disallows it, he cannot marry another wife while married to her. Polyandry, in which a wife has multiple husbands, is still strictly prohibited.
The idea that Islam allows polygamy so that men could pursue lust and as an excuse to fulfill sensual desires is a far cry from what the religion seeks to achieve.
Time and again, the question of polygamy in Islam is raised as a grave issue and a big hurdle to any serious discussions about the faith. The general idea is to ask: How can Islam claim that there is gender equality when it allows men to marry up to four wives? If men can have multiple wives, why are women also not allowed to marry more than one husband?
Research from the past two decades shows that between 20 and 25 percent of married men cheat and between 10 and 15 percent of married women cheat, according to Professor Nicholas Wolfinger, a professor of family and consumer studies at the University of Utah.
Most countries that criminalize adultery are those where the dominant religion is Islam, and several sub-Saharan African Christian-majority countries, but there are some notable exceptions to this rule, namely the Philippines and 17 U.S. states (as well as Puerto Rico). State laws typically define adultery as vaginal intercourse only. Therefore, two people seen kissing, groping, or engaged in oral sex, may not meet a state’s legal definition of adultery.
In the USA, laws vary from state to state. Although rarely prosecuted, adultery is still on the statute books and penalty may vary from a fine of few dollars to even life sentence. But in the US military, it is an impending court-martial crime.
State laws typically define adultery as vaginal intercourse only. Therefore, two people seen kissing, groping, or engaged in oral sex may not meet a state’s legal definition of adultery.
The legal status of polygamy varies from country to country, with each nation outlawing, accepting, or encouraging polygamy. In those countries that accept or encourage polygamy, polygyny is most common. In countries where only monogamous marriage is legally valid, de facto polygamy is typically allowed if adultery is not illegal. In regions such as these, in which polygamy is outlawed but tolerated, additional spouses after the first are not legally recognized.
With the exception of the Solomon Islands, polygamous marriages are not recognized in Europe and Oceania. In India, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore, the governments recognize polygamous marriages, but only for Muslims. In Australia, polygamous marriage is outlawed, but polygamous relationships are common within some indigenous Australian communities. In Indonesia, polygamy is legal in some areas, such as in Bali, Papua, and West Papua. Balinese Hinduism allows for polygamy, which has been practiced for centuries by the Balinese and Papuans. Protests to outlaw polygamy and polygamous marriages occurred in 2008 in Indonesia but did not result in legislative changes.
In some African countries, polygamy is illegal under civil law but still allowed through customary law, in which acts that have traditionally been accepted by a particular culture are considered legally permissible. This arguably confusing loophole results in two types of marriages: “civil” marriages and “customary” or “religious” marriages, and enables countries such as Liberia, Malawi, and Sierra Leone to allow and even support polygamous marriages without officially recognizing them.
Another unusual loophole is that many Muslim countries will recognize polygamous marriages as long as the husband, before marrying his first wife, informs her that he intends to add additional future wives … and she consents. If the first wife does not consent, the husband is not allowed to marry additional wives as long as he is married to her.
Some countries that have outlawed polygamy may still recognize polygamous marriages from other countries. For example, Sweden recognizes polygamous marriages performed abroad. Switzerland outlawed polygamy, but polygamous marriages conducted in another country are handled on a case-by-case basis. Australia recognizes polygamous marriages formed in other countries only under certain circumstances.
While illuminating, my studies didn’t reveal any “Abracadabra!” words I could share with my congregant to assuage his feelings of guilt and remorse. Maybe I should have cited this scripture: “Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed” (James 5:16). Although our relationship with God is personal, it’s not private. What we do in our personal lives affects others.
Ultimately the best I could do was to repeat two hackneyed euphemisms: “To thine own self be true” and “Let your conscience be your guide.”
From Hamlet, not the Bible, to thine own self be true means that we should be true to our principles and who we are. It’s a way of saying that we should stick to our principles, not assimilate, and do what we believe. It is beautifully phrased, and invokes ideas with positive connotations: truth, self-ownership, individuality.
There is something right about our need to follow our heart, to pursue our goals in an unwavering fashion, and to remain committed to those ideas we believe in. We should never be someone who betrays ourselves to impress or win over other people. Nor should we give up easily or quickly on those things we believe deep in our heart. So, we are right to whisper to ourselves “to thine own self be true.”
Jiminy Cricket offered Pinocchio this advice: “Always let your conscience be your guide.”
I always have a goal in mind when I counsel others: to get them to the point where they know the right thing to do before being faced with an ethical dilemma. It’s our inner conscience that drives us to act one way or another, informed by moral values and a desire to do the right thing … not because of any personal gain, but because we believe it’s the right thing to do.
Ultimately, that’s what I told him.
Pastor, professor, publisher, and journalist Bruce H. Joffe is the award-winning author of magazine features, academic research, journal articles, self-help manuals, and newspaper bylines. His eight books deal with international (intercultural) living, interfaith theology, gender studies, “social” politics, marketing, and the media.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
Today is a national holiday in Portugal. In Spain, as well.
For the most part, businesses are closed, and people aren’t working. Back in the USA, we’d refer to these special days as “bank holidays.”
Here in Iberia, today’s honor belongs to the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, which recognizes the Roman Catholic belief of the Virgin Mary’s immaculate conception (preserved from “original sin”) in her mother’s womb and is considered the first official day of Christmas celebrations for many people.
Others, however, look to “Black Friday” (no translation needed) as the true beginning of their holiday season.
In countries where Catholicism is the national religion, today is considered a “holy day of obligation,” religious feast days on which Catholics must attend mass and refrain from unnecessary work.
Do they?
Some do, especially older folks; others don’t, preferring to sleep in, enjoying a day with their families while catching up on household chores or taking day trips together.
Of Portugal’s 13 annual legal holidays, seven – more than half – are religious. In addition to Feast of the Immaculate Conception, there’s Good Friday (April), Easter (April), Corpus Christi (June), Assumption of Mary (August), All Saints’ Day (November), and Christmas Day (December) in 2023.
Spain has ten national holidays of which seven – 70% — are also based on religious observances: Today’s Feast of the Immaculate Conception, Christmas Day, Epiphany, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter, Assumption of Mary, and All Saints’ Day.
Add to these the regional holidays devoted to a given area’s particular saint.
While the vast majority (81%) of today’s Portuguese identify as Roman Catholic, most consider themselves “non-practicing.” And, according to the Spanish Center for Sociological Research, 52% of the Spanish self-identify as Catholic … with 35.2% defining themselves as non-practicing, while 16.8% see themselves as practicing their religion.
For many Spanish and Portuguese people, national and cultural identity is often linked to Catholicism rather than purely a religious affiliation.
Certainly, everyone appreciates the time off of work as designated by the state.
Rather than be obligated by religious holy days that no longer are the fabric of their lives, perhaps it’s time to be more flexible … allowing people to determine their own personal, meaningful holidays?
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
Attribute it, perhaps, to the Great Depression and/or the coattails of the Motion Picture Code (Hays Code) of 1930, whose “Particular Applications” specifically restricted references to “sex perversion” (i.e., homosexuality) … but advertisements of the 1930s were relatively nondescript and anemic—especially in terms of sexually ambiguous imagery and homoerotic double entendres.
It wasn’t until the nation began to crank up for war in the 1940s that a renaissance in same-sex subliminal seduction resolutely appeared on the pages of America’s mainstream media.
World War II brought men and women from around the globe together in close proximity. Gays, lesbians, and bisexual people could encounter others like themselves … though, of course, it wasn’t acceptable to express one’s sexuality openly.
Nonetheless, a number of advertisements from these war years featured soldiers in all-male environments either enjoying ribald and racy recreation or engaged in some sort of unseemly activity that, today, causes one’s eyebrows to arch in amazement.
The Cannon Towel Collection
Fieldcrest Cannon Corporation, for example, ran a series of six “True Towel Tales” ads between 1943 and 1944 in several general-interest magazines. Showing soldiers bathing in the field and frolicking in a variety of licentious settings, the sequences showcase men engaged in what looks more like bawdy Boy Scout adventures than a weary and worrisome war. This homoerotic campaign of playful, naked men may be the inspiration for more recent beefcake advertising such as that produced for Calvin Klein and Abercrombie & Fitch.
Lest these ads be misrepresented, let’s go on record here and now by noting that these charming vignettes about life in the armed forces were unequivocally patriotic and domestically informative. Readers were reminded of the reasons they might not be able to find Cannon towels in their hometown shops — because “our boys in the service need them more than we do, so there are fewer to go around” — and given tips on how to make their towels last longer and stay “durable for the duration.”
Cannon produced advertisements honoring various branches of military service: the Army, Air Force, Marines, Tank Corps, and Navy. Supposedly, the story told in each ad is based on the actual recollections of a specified serviceman.
Accompanied by an illustration as described by an Army medic, “Army Day—Crocodiles Keep Out!”, Cannon’s True Towel Tales No. 1 (1943), is attributed to a doctor in the medical corps. Did you ever have to put a net across your bathtub—and share it with a crocodile? These naked soldiers might be smiling and having fun in the water but, according to their captain, sometimes you have to do that for a “bath” in the South Pacific Islands! “You might not enjoy the bathing facilities of our boys in the service,” says Cannon, “but you’d heartily approve of their towels.”
A half-naked airman is the subject of 1943’s “Alaskan Aquacade,” whose story was told in a letter from a flier. Chased around by a smiling buddy who throws water at him from a bucket, the surprised Air Force pilot is literally showered. A couple of grinning guys lounge nearby on the floor, under a rack of hanging uniforms. “At one new Alaskan airfield,” recounts the flier, “a bath is a prized but precarious event. First, swipe a couple of buckets from the cook. Then fill with water. Only it isn’t water, it’s ice that you breathe on until it gets unstiff enough to pour. And—slosh! … Then break off the icicles and — with a good, husky towel — rub a little life back again!” According to Cannon, the point is that “the brisk, hard-working towel you take for granted can be almost a life-saver sometimes.” Especially when dealing with an “agent” that’s too stiff for comfort!
Marines are featured in the third True Towels tale. In “…What? … No Bath Salts? …” (1943) even the illustration is based on a photograph supplied by the U.S. Marine Corps. Here the action takes place in the Solomon Islands, where “it’s either the Pacific with a shark to tickle his pinkies—or the water-tank.” When you’re “jungle-dirty” — as are these fighting men who take a break from battle to towel off and admire their handiwork — “the primitive water-tank’s a luxury,” claim our returned Marine heroes. Fortunately, where towels are concerned, the bath isn’t that primitive because the “brisk, efficient (Cannon) towels you take for granted are welcome equipment to our men in all the services.” Yep, welcome “equipment.” Towels!
Showing members of a U.S. Tank Corps in North Africa taking a nude swim and sunbath while a soldier poses playing Julius Caesar, Cannon’s 1944 True Towel Tales #4 is based on an experience told by a sergeant in the Tank Corps. Maybe the Roman bath was built for a conquering Caesar but in this advertisement it’s being used by “Joe Doughboy,” who’s enjoying a Roman holiday. The holiday includes lots of men doing their best to “camp it up.” When what ails you is the “Mediterranean heat and fight fatigue and pestering flies, a swim is welcome,” counsels Cannon. Welcome, too, of course, is the brisk rub-down with a good towel from the good-towel company.
Now imagine yourself in boxer shorts, taking a bath with an elephant. That’s the scenario in “Hey, Turn Off the Water, Jumbo!” Cannon’s True Towel Tales No. 5. As told by a soldier, this 1944 ad shows Americans in Ceylon where an elephant hoses down the sailors with its trunk as natives wash the pachyderms. According to the story, “…there’s a Hindu who lives near a river and owns an elephant. When the hot season comes, he’ll send our shore-going sailors a shower-bath for less than a rupee.” Of course, one has to bring his own towel! Does the image of being hosed off by an elephant seem exciting … or appealing and tawdry? “Me and my mates tried it,” sez the Sailor, “and ‘twasn’t bad!” It’s different strokes for different folks as this ad goes to show that not everyone is comfortable with a jumbo hose, mate.
Fieldcrest Cannon’s final True Towels Tale (#6) was also published in 1944 and deals, again, with our Army men. This time they’re center sage in an abandoned canoe, taking a nude bath while the natives form an audience. As the villagers look on, a soldier playfully poses and vamps with a palm branch barely covering his body. Is this a bath … the “baths” … or a drag show? The canoe was full of rain water “and we were dirty,” explains the soldier. “The natives thought we were whacky—but whatta bath, brother, whatta bath!” Like the other ads in Cannon’s campaign, the men here seem to enjoy looking at each other’s nude bodies. This ad in particular seems to focus on a man pretending to be in drag, entertaining the men — some sitting between each other’s legs. One soldier looks on and whistles as, puzzled, the natives watch from afar.
Cannon’s strategy was an effective way to propagandize people to support the war effort, and provided some appealing eye-candy for women and the boys. Despite what could be construed as racist images of “natives” looking on as the military men bathe, the message is clear: Our GIs are having a good time, keeping clean, and out of harm’s way.
“The focus of these ads was on the value of Cannon towels to the soldiers, but the images were homo-erotic enough to allow for an alternate interpretation by a gay man,” says Edward H. Sewell (2005).
Bear in mind that on the battlefield, as in other gender-specific environments (i.e., same-sex boarding schools or jails), the absence of women could possibly have allowed for a more liberal and freer expression of man’s primal needs … and that, given the circumstances, society generally may have been more willing to waive its condescension or condemnation of such activities.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
“The war years had witnessed a sudden and dramatic change in the appearance of men in Life magazine,” writes John Ibson (2002) in Picturing Men: A Century of Male Relationships in Everyday American Photography. “Men in various postures of intimacy had begun to appear in Life advertisements with remarkable frequency once the war was under way. In several issues just before the conflict, in 1940, the magazine had depicted no adult men alone together, without women; by 1943 and 1944, only one issue had no such male-to-male interactions in advertising.”
The potent mix of masculinity and patriotism symbolized by soldiers and sailors has, in its biochemistry, fundamental elements of seminal appeal. So, Cannon wasn’t the only company to employ homoerotic images in its advertising.
Nor was Cannon the only towel company to promote its products with advertisements featuring naked men engaged in activities, like doing laundry, associated with the gentler sex. A stunning illustration in a 1942 ad for the Pepperell Manufacturing Company of Boston shows the “U.S. Hand Laundry” corps in various stages of undress, cleaning their clothes in a river. With no washing machines or buttons to press, the muscular graphics undoubtedly drew admiration from men, as well as the attention of women.
Sacrificial Soldiers
Although a sense of free-spirited debauchery may be distilled from ads sponsored by Coca Cola, Pullman, Fisher (GM) Body Works, Armstrong Cork, Oldsmobile, Interwoven Socks, Listerine, International Harvester, and even Ma Bell, patriotism, sacrifice, and the welfare of our troops are all prioritized in these World War II ads … whatever else can be inferred or implied.
Perhaps no other ad so succinctly represents this primordial tug-of-war between protecting our boys and allowing the men their sexual latitude in such critical times as “The Kid in Upper 4” sponsored by the New Haven Railroad and published between 1942 and 1943. Immortalized by social historian Allan Berube (1990) in his definitive book on homosexuality in World War II, this ad has special significance: “Life in sex-segregated quarters created homosexual tensions as well as opportunities,” Berube contends. “A magazine advertisement illustrates how young recruits were placed ‘two in every lower berth’ on troop trains.” Presumably, the kid in upper 4 is depicted alone, worried, and wide awake because he is so young, so angelic, so blond. Poignant text about him leaving home and heading to war talks about what he left behind and what faces him ahead: “Next time you are on the train, remember the kid in Upper 4. If you have to stand enroute—it is so he may have a seat. If you have to wait for a seat in the diner—it is so he … and thousands like him … may have a meal they won’t forget in the days to come.”
What a tearjerker! A gay man’s eyes moist over this ad even today, thinking about what may befall this beautiful boy in the upper berth once he arrives “over there.”
Madcap Male-to-Male Interactions among Military Men
Madison Avenue’s woofish sketches of warfare revolved around sweat-drenched soldiers surrounded by other fighting men (and, at times, natives) who are either smiling and sneering or leering and jeering as they hand off erectile projectiles — artillery, missiles, guns, cannons or swords — to their comrades and/or combatants in arms.
The men here may not have been alone in the trenches, but their demeanor — sometimes saucy, other times threatening — and the winsome wording of the ad copy could coalesce to produce a sexually provocative response from some men in the advertising audience. Bombastic, iconoclastic … and homoerotic … are words that would agree with these sabers-rattling ads.
A 1943 full-color ad by Fisher, then a division of General Motors, is headlined “Body blow by Fisher.” Certainly the possibility exists for some double-entendre, especially as augmented by other ad copy here: “Take care of that equipment … make it last … make it do.” Beneath a blazing sky, this full-color advertisement shows a number of shirtless soldiers blowing off rigid cannons being both loaded and discharged.
That same year (1943), the National Dairy Products Corporation and Affiliated Companies issued its own call to arms with a smiling, jungle-based soldier “spoon-feeding” a hunk of cheese into the mouth of a cool, calm and collected military man from the Alaskan snows with a large firearm firmly balanced behind his bowls. “When guns are hot and time is short, the emergency cheese ration can be eaten as it is—like a candy bar,” carps the copy. “Or it can be mixed with a little water to make a tasty spread for bread. Or the mixture can be set aside for an hour or so and then sliced.” Sliced, spread or diced, America’s fighting men could cool their guns with (purportedly) tasty treats … even during emergencies!
Soldiers, some undressed and others in various stages of uniform, are also featured around a cannon that’s just shot a load in a full-color 1943 ad for Inter Woven Socks. Nothing’s really outlandish here, although a queer eye looking beyond the (presumably) straight soldier guys will probably laugh at the headline: “In Times Like These—Endurance Counts.” While the socks may indeed be “Long Wearing … Comfortable … Good-Looking,” it would be most extraordinary if the battle-weary soldiers were wearing such lovely argyle, striped and solid color socks under their regulation boots and regalia.
Pullman produced several ads in a series illustrated by Albert Dorne during 1944, when their passenger trains carried troops instead of people traveling for pleasure. In one, two soldiers stationed in Egypt are trying to adapt to a particular custom of the country: taking one’s shoes off before entering a home. But until we’re well into reading the copy, we don’t know that. Instead, as a native looks on suspiciously, two GIs guiltily remove their footwear in the threshold of a building. The ad’s headline — “I never did this in daylight before!” — adds to the illicit sense that the soldiers have been caught doing something for which they can be discharged today. “Back home, he came in the house with his shoes in his hand only when he’d stayed out late — to keep from disturbing Mother and Dad,” begins the copy. The implication? Possibly this: He might have been a good boy back home, but now he’s indulging his baser instincts.
A large piece of artillery from a crate of ammo in hand, another shirtless soldier with a somewhat skeptical but determined look approaches a uniformed GI in a jungle somewhere during the war. As he brandishes the burnished shell at his comrade, the headline in an Armstrong Cork company advertisement screams: “Listen, soldier, it just doesn’t make sense!” Is the shirtless soldier menacing the other man, who’s attempting to talk him out of doing something unwarranted or outlandish?
Attempting to gain a sense and semblance of the action here, our eyes wander around the illustration. There’s another soldier smack in the middle, watching what’s going on with obvious delight. Behind him, almost hidden by the trees and foliage, other men stand in front of a cannon or, bare-chested, carry duffle bags above their heads.
Let’s now turn to the advertising copy here and read a conversation between Bill, Joe and Hank. As it turns out, Bill is simply showing the shell to Joe so he can see the Armstrong trademark. Joe, whose father has been selling Armstrong Linoleum in his furniture store, can’t believe the same company manufactures weapons. It’s Hank — the smiling soldier ambling up to them — who explains that the Armstrong companies make a lot of different products.
The graphics and headline of this attention-grabbing ad don’t come across as appropriate for a mild-mannered exposition on the “hundreds of diversified products” made by Armstrong. But that’s how an effective advertisement can work. Shock value grabs our attention as we sort out the pieces, seeking solution(s) to the advertisement’s purpose or message. Appealing to our sense of fear — homophobia … a jungle setting … in the midst of a world war — this homoerotic ad uses language and images to create a complex yet compelling tableau.
Close-knit sailors — perhaps a bit too close for comfort — appear in a 1945 advertisement for Listerine Antiseptic, touted here as “the tested treatment” for infectious dandruff. “Oh, yeah! A month’s pay says it will!” bets the sailor on the right, referring to Listerine’s ability to get rid of the flakes and scales on his buddy’s jumper. Head cocked aggressively with his face uplifted and an expression of bully daring about him, the sailor holds out some money in his left hand while his companion brushes the dandruff off his shoulder. Chastised and chastened, chagrin is etched deeply across the downcast face and furrowed brow of the embarrassed sailor who’s ashamed to look his friend in the eye. Although hardly effeminate, there’s something soft and feminine about the suffering soldier. Here’s a twist, a role reversal from most (non-combat) advertisements of the time that show a man and woman — where she always tends to be the student to him as the teacher. One guy learns an important lesson about personal hygiene from another in this ad. How domestic and degrading for a military man!
Listerine had laid on a lulu of gay ambiguity in an earlier, 1943, ad: By their body language, two bruising sailors appear to be doing some sort of cheerleading or mating minuet as they bend and bow in a bizarre ballet, looking cautiously at each other. “Butch says don’t bring Lulu,” one tells the other in this 1943 ad for Listerine. Leaning close, the sailor seems to be winking wonkshly while his buddy nervously looks around to see if they’ve been caught or observed together. Turns out that little things disturb courageous men like these: “Butch came through a couple of bombings and never batted an eye,” we learn. But when it came to a second date with Lulu, “he wanted out.” Sure, Lulu was a looker – with good “gams, and plenty of oomph.” When shore leave is short, though, a man doesn’t want to spend it with a girl who’s got bad breath. Listerine may have been part of their “passport to popularity,” but our money is still betting on Butch and his flag-waving buddy … leaving Lulu behind.
Epilogue
After the war, titillating ads continued to appear with potentially hidden, coded, or ambiguous gay themes and messages.
“Monogamy at the Naval Academy: Now A Forced-Feeding Social Life,” proclaimed an ad promoting an upcoming story to be published in the March 1, 1958 issue of The Saturday Evening Post. But to what kind of monogamous social life … and whose forced feeding … did the headline allude?
With 1,700 rooms and five miles of corridors, Bancroft Hall — “one of the largest single dormitories in the U.S.” — houses the Naval Academy’s entire brigade of 4,000 midshipmen, states Blaine Taylor (2005) in Military Heritage magazine. Since Annapolis first accepted women as midshipmen in 1976, the purported lack of monogamy and potential erotic overtures among the men housed there tug at the intellect but boggle the mind.
“What will it take for a straight guy to go gay?” asks Kevin Cassell (2004). “Try just a few weeks in the United States Navy during a time when homosexuality was not just grounds for dishonorable discharge, but for a full-scale criminal investigation and, if found guilty, incarceration. Yes, it happened: dozens of young, straight naval recruits ‘went gay,’ with no small degree of enthusiasm, at the Newport Naval Training Station in Rhode Island in 1919.”
Not a well-known fact, shares a friend, but “in the early 1950s, during the height of the Korean War, the military academies were being forced to turn out more officers than they had the capacity to house. Since most of the bunk beds were being shipped out to military barracks, the academies had to resort to double beds in their small rooms, and putting three cadets into a room with two in a double bed. This didn’t last very long when it was found out that the double beds facilitated some ‘buddy activity’ during the night when the bunkmates got familiar with each other. I don’t recall where I first learned this, and I’d certainly go look for a definitive reference before repeating it, but I’m 99% sure it’s true,” he said.
Despite McCarthyism and the myriad struggles predating Stonewall yet ahead, “gay” and homoerotic imagery — explicit or implied — made such headway during the World War II years that the roadblocks to real liberation throughout the advertising world would become fewer and farther between.
But that’s the grist for another article … or, more likely, a series.
Retired communications professor, marketing director, and publisher Bruce H. Joffe has amassed an extensive array of media, management, and human resource experience, along with counseling and “people” skills. Fluent in Spanish and conversant in Portuguese, he has taught public relations, media, marketing, and journalism courses at The American University, George Mason University, Mary Baldwin University, Carthage College, and Kaplan College. The award-winning author of magazine features, academic research, professional journal articles, and newspaper byliners, he has published eight books: titles deal with marketing, the media, interfaith and progressive theology, church reform, gender studies, and international (intercultural) living/communication.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, the 3rd section of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment appears as unambiguous today as when it was written:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Look carefully and reread the first (very long) sentence.
It makes no hint or mention that any elected official who has sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States must be criminally convicted of insurrection. Rather, the words state that those who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof …”
Nonetheless, therein lies the crux of debate about what this means today.
Constitutional scholars – both academic and judicial – have researched and studied this clause dutifully, especially in recent years.
A law review article claiming that Donald Trump is automatically disqualified from holding elected office is getting attention in large part because it was written by two conservative, originalist law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, who argue that Trump should be excluded from ballots for giving aid to an “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The Washington Post questioned the validity of the scholars’ thesis: “… although Baude and Paulsen’s originalism is honest and conscientious, originalists outside of academia typically won’t apply their originalism if it leads to a result at odds with their conservatism. Second, there is precedent that contradicts their argument — precedent the scholars dismiss because they say it contradicts the original meaning of Section 3.”
When the 14th Amendment was drafted after the Civil War, the original meaning of Section 3 was that anyone who previously held public office and then rebelled against the US government should be automatically barred from office unless two-thirds of Congress made an exception. This constitutional provision is law and requires no further action by Congress to implement it, the article says. Courts can and should apply it, but we don’t need to wait for them to do so. Any government official, state or federal, whose duty it is to apply the Constitution must obey Section 3. It follows, the authors say, that the state officials who set the ballots for the primaries and general elections should exclude Trump. If he wants to fight that in court, he can. But there’s no need for the officials to await a judicial determination.
“To state this argument is to see why it won’t be followed by state officials,” argued the Washington Post in an opinion piece published on August 20, 2023. “Was the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol an ‘insurrection’? Did Trump participate or give aid and comfort to the ‘enemies’ of the Constitution under Section 3? These are contentious questions of constitutional interpretation.”
From Trump’s second impeachment to his fourth criminal indictment and his very own words, I believe the answers to the Post’s questions are irrefutable:
Apart from the evidence, the case against Donald Trump engaging in insurrection is clear even by his own words.
According to CNN, Trump called for the termination of the Constitution to overturn the 2020 election and reinstate him to power in a continuation of his election denialism and pushing of fringe conspiracy theories:
“Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump blasted in a post on his Truth Social network and accused “Big Tech” of working closely with Democrats. “Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
Trump falsely cited election fraud as a reason to terminate the Constitution, after Elon Musk released information about Twitter’s role in limiting access to a story about Hunter Biden, says Axios.
The irony, huh?
White House spokesman Andrew Bates said that Trump’s remarks are “anathema to the soul of our nation and should be universally condemned.”
“You cannot only love America when you win,” Bates declared. “The American Constitution is a sacrosanct document that for over 200 years has guaranteed that freedom and the rule of law prevail in our great country. The Constitution brings the American people together – regardless of party – and elected leaders swear to uphold it. It’s the ultimate monument to all of the Americans who have given their lives to defeat self-serving despots that abused their power and trampled on fundamental rights.”
Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, an outspoken Trump critic, denounced the former president’s Truth Social statement. Cheney, who served as vice chair of the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, tweeted that, “Donald Trump believes we should terminate ‘all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution’ to overturn the 2020 election. That was his view on 1/6 and remains his view today. No honest person can now deny that Trump is an enemy of the Constitution.”
Trump expressed support for the rioters behind the deadly January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, saying in a video played during a fundraiser that, “People have been treated unconstitutionally in my opinion and very, very unfairly, and we’re going to get to the bottom of it.” Further, in a September 2022 interview, Trump said he was “financially supporting” some January 6 defendants and promised he would issue pardons and a government apology to those being prosecuted if he were re-elected.
In the aftermath of the events of January 6, 2021, in and around the U.S. Capitol, there have been calls for accountability for those who participated, as well as for those who may have helped instigate it. The breach of the Capitol resulted in numerous injuries, multiple deaths, and significant property damage. It also delayed Congress’s constitutional duty of certifying electoral votes for President-elect Joseph Biden and caused Capitol Police and other law enforcement personnel to evacuate the Vice President and Members of Congress from the House and Senate floors to safer locations. Some observers, historians, and other commentators are wondering whether the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment might provide a mechanism to disqualify individuals who participated in or encouraged the siege, including former and sitting government officials, from holding office.
“Invocation of the Disqualification Clause raises a number of novel legal questions involving the activities that could trigger disqualification, the offices to which disqualification might apply, and the mechanisms to enforce disqualification,” reports the Congressional Research Service. “The clause has been seldom used, and the few times it has been used in the past mainly arose out of the Civil War—a very different context from the events of January 6. It is therefore unclear to what extent historical precedents provide useful guidance for its application to the events of January 6. This Legal Sidebar describes the Disqualification Clause, explains to whom it might apply and what activities could incur a bar on holding office, and discusses possible mechanisms to implement it.”
The same Congressional Research Service report states, “Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary” and indicates that, “Section 3 does not expressly provide a procedure for its implementation other than Section 5’s general authority of Congress “to enforce [the Fourteenth Amendment] by appropriate legislation.”
There might be multiple ways Congress could enforce the Disqualification Clause, including relying on federal criminal prosecution for insurrection and treason, allowing private civil enforcement through writs of quo warranto or other procedures, enacting legislation establishing general procedures for adjudicating disqualification under Section 3, or for identifying specific disqualified individuals, or measures by the House or Senate to exclude or expel individuals from their respective houses.
In the June 7, 2022 issue of Lawfare, Roger Parloff, a Washington, DC-based journalist who was the main legal correspondent at Fortune magazine for 12 years, writes: “It’s extremely likely that at least one of those election officials will find Trump disqualified under Section 3.” Parloff continues, “There is actually a disquietingly strong case at this point that Trump should be disqualified under Section 3 as a factual matter. I say ‘disquietingly’ because the prospect of seeing his name blocked from the ballot in at least some states — though certainly not in others — gives pause in terms of both the violence it might unleash among his followers and the chaos it could bring to the 2024 presidential election. Still, the prospect of his returning to power, notwithstanding all the evidence of his having incited the Capitol insurrection, is even more disquieting.
“The decisions about whether Trump’s name can appear on the presidential ballot will be made, in the first instance, by 51 different secretaries of state. It’s extremely likely that at least one of those election officials — perhaps quite a few — will find Trump disqualified under Section 3. And that will usher in a truly unprecedented and volatile situation,” concludes Parloff.
Mechanisms to implement Section 3 of the 14th Amendment purportedly involve the secretaries of state in each of the 50 states and “territories” where people vote in the USA. The secretaries of state must approve all candidates who appear on the ballot. A single “nay” can – and will – trigger a constitutional crisis, as the election cannot proceed without the approval of all eligible voters.
The case will immediately be presented to the U.S. Supreme Court for adjudication. With three Trump-appointed associate justices, SCOTUS is heavily conservative (6 to 3).
Unfortunately, the media – mainstream and “(un)social” – have paid but mere and passing attention to Article 3 of the 14th Amendment, preferring, instead, to cover the ever-widening web of intrigue surrounding Donald Trump and his supporters from before the 2020 election to today and beyond. In effect, it’s been a case of the spider (Trump) to the flies (the media).
Back in 1964, Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan coined the “Medium is the message” phrase, contending that a message could be construed by any of three ways: (1) The content of the message, per se, could be construed as the message—i.e., it is what it is and says what it means; (2) The messenger, himself or herself, can personify the message incarnate—witness such charismatic personalities as Oprah Winfrey, Michelle and Barack Obama, Hitler, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, and Donald Trump. What they’re saying is secondary to the people, themselves, who are saying it; and (3) The medium is the message in that what’s most important to a message being received and re/acted upon isn’t what’s being said or by whom, but where—on Fox News or MSNBC, on Rachel Madow or Tucker Carlson, in the New York Times or New York Post, on Facebook or Truth Social.
For Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to become the message even before the general election, it’s up to us to use all the media at our disposal: posts on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, and others … letters written to the editors of the New York Times, Boston Globe, USA Today, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and our local newspapers … emails, faxes, and telephone messages sent to our legislators and justices … feedback and questions sent via the websites of cable news shows and anchors, streaming services, and radio speakers.
There’s a lot of rage in this country at a lot of things, so much so that newscaster Howard Beale’s cry in the 1976 film Network, “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!” has become a kind of national mantra.
The Dow goes up. The Dow goes down. Today it’s up. Everybody is smiling. Everybody is happy. Great. Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t think I am, but maybe I am. I think people understand that with all of the spending and the uncertainty from government, we are far from standing on solid ground. But the media seem to be painting a picture of anyone who is worried enough to prepare for the future as crazy. Call them crazy. I’m crazy. You’re crazy. We’re all crazy together.
Those who have followed my musings about the national elections which, already, have left the starting gate may recall that I was toying with the idea of third-party candidates.
I am well aware of the bleak history of those running against the Democrats and Republicans … especially in the cases of Gore v. Bush (2000) and Clinton v. Trump (2016). Without third-party contenders, election victories would easily have gone to Hilary Clinton and Al Gore.
For all the talk about why Donald Trump was elected president while losing the popular vote and how he could win again, one of the least discussed results of the 2016 election offers valuable lessons for Democrats.
Their strong showing was due to the unpopularity of the two major-party nominees.
New?
If anything, lack of enthusiasm for both party candidates is even stronger today. People will be voting against rather than for: A vote for Biden will likely be a vote against Trump … and vice-versa.
Please, don’t misunderstand: When push comes to shove, the bottom line is simple: Joe Biden is a good man. Donald Trump is not. He’s a very, very bad man. But both are politicians playing to their bases, with difficulty attracting independent voters and suburban women who will probably decide the winners. And if push comes to shove, with Biden as the Democrats’ nominee v.Trump or any other Republican, I will vote for Joe Biden.
However …
Our electorate historically has had 40% voting for Democrats, 40% voting for Republicans, and 20% being unaffiliated, issues-based voters. But today, the situation has significantly worsened for the two major parties as both have shed support from center-oriented voters who perceive both the right and the left as increasingly pandering to activists and the extremes of each party.
Recent polling data indicates a new split: 35% leaning Democrat, 35% leaning Republican, and a full 30% who are unaffiliated, issues-based voters. Yes, close to a third of voters today are issue-driven voters looking for solutions to the nation’s problems. These voters may well determine the winner in 2024. What’s more, in another recent poll, close to half of American voters say they would consider backing a third-party candidate if President Biden and former President Trump head toward a rematch in 2024.
Nonetheless, I have changed my mind about supporting third-party candidates in the 2024 presidential election.
Why?
Because I think there’s a better option:
For the greater good of the USA and democracy, per se, I believe President Biden needs to complete his term, step aside, and defer to another candidate.
Not because of his age or health, which concerns many voters, and is a very legitimate concern. But because Americans need to shed these years of divisiveness – of which Joe Biden is part – and move on.
Last summer, after a reporter cited poll numbers suggesting just 26 percent of Democrats wanted him to be the nominee, the president rejected the idea that a large majority of his own party’s voters don’t want him on the ballot in 2024. “Read the polls, Jack!” Biden said. “You guys are all the same. That poll showed that 92 percent of Democrats, if I ran, would vote for me.” This statement, however, was somewhat misleading: Ninety-two percent of Democrats said they would vote for Biden in a general election rematch with Trump, not that they wanted him to run. In fact, 2022 exit polls showed that two-thirds of USA voters don’t want him to run for reelection.
Nevertheless, Joe Biden launched his re-election campaign with a video in which he says the country faces a pivotal moment in the 2024 vote.
The Democratic Party, however, still needs convincing that he is the best candidate they have. Polls show about half of Democrats want the party to nominate someone else – although many of those have said they will still vote for him. Because of Trump … not because of Biden’s record.
Joe Biden has made it clear he intends to stand for re-election in 2024, but despite his fighting spirit, Biden’s intention may not necessarily hold up.
Within the Democratic party, concerns have grown over the president’s age (he’ll be 82 shortly after the 2024 election), his low approval ratings (he’s mired in the low 40s in job approval), and ongoing political struggles … and you get this: a series of stories examining whether Biden runs again and, if not, who might take his place.
Recent news of classified documents found in his Delaware home have certainly not helped in soothing these concerns. Nor did the dogged plea deals arranged with his son, Hunter.
If Biden does not run, the 2024 Democratic primaries would become a much more open contest. And there are several potential candidates:
• Kamala D. Harris would be the presumptive nominee. Biden’s announcement may raise some doubts that Harris will be his running mate again in 2024. According to The Washington Post, “There have been questions about how voters might feel about that, given that her ascension to the top job is a more real prospect with Biden in his 80s, and she’s generally less popular than both Biden and recent vice presidents. Polls suggest she’s the nominal front-runner in a Biden-less race, but without anything approaching a convincing margin.
• Gretchen Whitmer Democrats have shown they’re more interested in pragmatism, including by nominating Biden in 2020. And it’s hard to see them doing worse than the well-regarded and liked female governor of a swing state (Michigan) who has won two campaigns there by about 10 points. Whitmer has said she wouldn’t run even in a Biden-less race, but it’s not difficult to see a huge recruiting effort emerging. Plenty will believe she is the answer.
• Amy Klobuchar The Minnesota senator is among those seen as quietly doing the things one would do to remain a part of the conversation in a post-Biden race. She makes sense as a stand-in for Biden and his more pragmatic brand of politics, but she might have competition for that lane with others.
• Pete Buttigieg The transportation secretary is seemingly aiming higher — whether in 2024 or 2028 — after passing on running for an open Senate seat in his adoptive home state of Michigan. While he finished fifth in pledged delegates in 2020, it’s worth recalling that he just about won both of the first two states, Iowa and New Hampshire. His lack of appeal to minority voters is a major obstacle that must be dealt with—especially given his open sexual orientation. But he’s also the most established and capable national messenger on this list. And perhaps more people would give him a look now that he’s no longer just a 30-something mayor of a medium-size city. If elected, Buttigieg would be the youngest ever president and the first openly gay man to become president.
• Gavin Newsom Despite his protestations, the California governor is widely viewed as being among the most likely candidates to run if Biden falters. He’s gone to great lengths to build his national profile in recent months, while pushing his party toward a more in-your-face approach to taking on Republicans. It’s easy to see how that message might play well. Newsom is less disliked than Biden and Harris, but is still polling in the single digits. But this may be explained by his slightly lower name recognition among voters. Data from the January Granite State Poll in New Hampshire shows that some voters felt they do not know enough about him to form an opinion yet. If Newsom enters the race for the Democratic nomination, his early campaign strategies would need to be focused on raising his public profile across the nation.
No sitting president in modern American history has been primaried successfully, although intraparty challenges usually end up hurting the incumbent in the general election. If something happens to change Biden’s mind or circumstances in the long months before the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, however, “then it’s open season,” Tampa-area Democrat Doris Carroll told The Wall Street Journal.
Whether vice president or wild card favorite, no Democrat except Biden has formally declared an intention to run. The ball is in the president’s court. But if he decides not to run amid increased calls for him to step aside, the Democratic party certainly has options, and the primaries could shape up to become a highly competitive contest.
As they should be.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
The post was published in one of the Facebook groups for towns and villages surrounding Penamacor in Central Portugal. But it’s only exemplary—it could (probably has been!) posted anywhere and everywhere across Portugal or, for that matter, Spain.
It began with a heart-wrenching photo of a dog.
“Does anyone recognize this dog by any chance?” were the words below it. “Poor boy is skeletal and covered in ticks. We’ve managed to get him in our car and are going to take him to the vet. He’s very scared and also friendly. I’m hoping he’s just lost.”
An update quickly followed: “No chip. The vet gave him a tick tablet. That’s all the vet can do for now, so we desperately need help. Can anybody, please, house him until we are able to sort either a home or sanctuary for him? We’re happy to pay for his dog food, etc.”
A second update was posted: “’Arnie’ slept through the night really well. He didn’t whimper or cry once, nor did he leave any mess. He is now flea- and tick-free and is showing signs of trust. Surprisingly, he hasn’t shown any aggression towards our cat, Bob. Now he has the chance to get healthy and find a family, as he deserves.”
Comments came fast and furious.
“Hundreds of dogs are abandoned here every day,” exclaimed an angry Miguel. “The kennels are full and there are no mechanisms for dealing with these issues.”
The author of the original post replied, “I know, it’s really sad. My partner has been in the kennel life over here, so we are very aware. We are trying to prevent Arnie from going to the Canil, as it’s no life for a dog. Not sure what we are going to do. For now, we will keep him at home, bathe him, and keep our dogs away until we can find somewhere to place him.”
Miguel quickly replied: “There are over 30 dogs in the farm next to mine that are extremely poorly treated. No vaccines, no treatments, no anything. They have so many insects, it looks like a horror movie when you’re close. I’ve contacted every government agency and animal advocacy group in Portugal. No one will do anything.”
He continued, “They keep having puppies and, when they’re older, they abandon them. They barely feed them; so, at night, they get into all the trash in the village and city in order to eat. They’re not neutered, so there’s constantly more. We find dead puppies all the time.”
I cringed when reading this. We, too, had found litters of day-old puppies trashed in the bins of our small village outside Castelo Branco. The first time, only one survived. We brought him home, stopping enroute to buy puppy formula, a couple of light blankets, a hot water bottle, and a toy. We shared responsibilities with Olga, another animal advocate in our village. We kept and cared for him during the days while she was at work. She picked him up on her way home from work and dropped him off with us the next morning. Both of us had other dogs of our own. No matter, this was an imperative. We nursed the baby until he was three weeks old, and his darling eyes had opened. A lovely British family living in a caravan then took him and kept him, ensuring he was properly treated and trained. Not even a month later, Olga knocked on our door. In her hand was a towel covering two tiny puppies her mother had found in another bin in the village. “Can you take him for me, just until I get home from work?” she asked. “We can do what we did last time, until someone who’ll adopt them can be found.” There was no question. Incredibly, the same Brits who adopted our first foundling took both of the babies and fostered them, sharing photos with us as they grew and finally found forever homes with others.
“The government needs to do more,” Tonii, the original poster, replied to Miguel. “This is a serious problem, poor souls. I will never be able to understand and wish I could do more to help!”
“Call the IRA (Intervenção e Resgate Animal),” suggested Jenny, who had joined the conversation. The IRA’s mission is to rescue animals that are victims of mistreatment, negligence, or when their welfare conditions provided for by law are not guaranteed.
Miguel replied, “The IRA told me they won’t respond so far outside of Lisbon and to call the local police. Police won’t do anything. The municipal vet says the kennel is full. That I should build fences. The government doesn’t do anything.”
Condolences and words of support from others began to appear in the comments.
“Thank you for what you are doing for this poor animal. Hope you will find a good home for him; he deserves a better life,” began Kristine.
“Thank you for helping!” echoed Sonja. “Poor thing, that could be the reason why I can’t really live in Portugal. I couldn’t stand the suffering. I would like to support, but I already did for a dog, 200 Euros, then he got hit by a car! I support every month a friend in Morocco. She saves donkeys, horses, dogs, cats. It’s amazing! Wish you all the best with this. Love from Belgium!”
“It is hard, at first it was a big culture shock, and I guess still is,” Tonii told Sonja. “But after living here three years, I know that not every dog you see on the street is a stray. A lot of Portuguese allow their dogs to roam freely here. But when they are in this state, you know they aren’t just roaming … they’re abandoned. It is hard, but please be careful what you say. The other day I was called xenophobic and racist for saying that Portugal needs to get with the times (i.e., education and help from government for poorer communities that can’t afford to neuter their animals). We have brought him home for now. He’s had a bath, some food, and is now resting in the other room. If we had the space (and fewer dogs), I’d keep him in a heartbeat. He’s so gentle.”
“Maybe he’s a lost hunting dog?” Hélia interjected. “The way he is, so skinny, shows that he’s probably been abandoned for a long time.” Jennifer agreed: “Probably a hunting dog left behind. They starve them for months, at least that’s what they do on this island.”
“Hunting dogs are usually chipped as they are worth a fair bit to the owners,” stated Caroline. Arnie wasn’t chipped, though.
“It’s heartbreaking, every time I see a new abandoned dog I want to help; but already having five, it isn’t possible,” shared Julie and several others.
“Julie, this is how we ended up with 20 … not through choice but found on the streets in terrible condition,” Diane told her. “I know what you mean,” replied Julie, but sometimes you have to draw a line and give the best life to the rescues you already have.”
Portugal and Spain both have laws about mistreating and abandoning animals. As shown here, however, that doesn’t mean they can – or will – enforce them. And woe to the foreigners who intercede on behalf of these misbegotten critters. We’re called out, ridiculed, and told to go back where we came from if this devil-may-care attitude irritates us so much.
Lately — for several months now — the church bells in our town and village have been off, ringing randomly, incessantly, and pealing the wrong hours.
What is happening to these bucolic timepieces for which we’ve abandoned wearing watches?
“The bellringer has died and there’s no one to take his place,” we’ve been told. Even the automated, mechanical gongs must be precisely set and adjusted manually. Again, it’s a dying art form–few and far between are the people with the know-how to do it.
Yesterday, as we were walking down one of the town’s shopping streets, my eyes came to rest upon a shoemaker, also known as a cobbler or cordwainer. For fifty years, this professional man now in his seventies has had his shop in the same spot where he fixed and repaired shoes, sandals, slippers, and boots along with a litany of their parts: heels, hooks, eyelets, buckles, and laces. Twice, I had brought the same pair of my favorite shoes to him for new soles. And, hoping he’s still working, I’ll bring them back to him again for a third set. This makes me happy … to enjoy my favorite footwear for many, many years. But, how long can and will he be around? Is there anyone qualified to replace him? More importantly, with the abundance of low-cost, disposable, throw-away foot coverings, do we still need these craftspeople?
It got me thinking about a plethora of things I remember but no longer are around … at least where we live. Undoubtedly, some will disagree and point to these memories which continue to exist where they live (or not far), while others will nod in remembrance but shrug them off as antiquities which have withered in the chain of evolution … survival of the fittest.
In no particular order other than stream of consciousness, here are some of my memories that have faded along with cobblers and church bells:
• Small businesses — mom and pop shops — instead of multinational corporations, tech start-ups, and ubiquitous franchises. Amazon and its ilk have made many obsolete.
• Calligraphy, the art of handwriting, along with classes teaching cursive letters. Who needs them anymore, with the proliferation of word processed fonts?
• Half-hour newscasts rather than round-the-clock commentary and news dumps. In my humble opinion, the obsession with knowing every detail and being up to the minute with constant streams of speculation and (mis)information has contributed significantly to our sense of stress, anxiety, madness, and troublesome vicissitudes.
• Corner candy stores where, unlike today’s sanitized, mass produced, and covered delicacies, the chocolates were handmade and penny candies unfettered.
• Luncheonettes with jukeboxes that have morphed into snack bars and “cafés,” especially here in Spain and Portugal.
• Thrift shops, both old and new. Walmart, Target, E LeClerc, Carrefour, and Todo €1 will never rekindle the charm and romance of Woolworth, McCrory’s, or Ben Franklin stores. In the USA, “upscale resale” businesses are exploding … but here in Spain and Portugal, the natives disdain “used, old things,” unless they’re family heirlooms handed down through generations. Finding genuine thrift and “antique” shops requires both Google Maps and at an hour or two drive.
• The seltzer man. Perhaps local to my New York City upbringing, Louis Arment came weekly to our Queens house, bringing a wooden case filled with a dozen glass seltzer bottles with triggers and a kick. Today, these bottles and boxes fetch a pretty penny at antiques shops. Somehow, today’s “club sodas” can’t replace the fizz of seltzer water.
• Italian-style restaurants, rather than the pizzerias that, as afterthoughts, might serve lasagna, cannelloni, and similar pastas. Yes, I know they’re not “real” (i.e., authentic) Italian, but I hanker for meatballs and spaghetti, antipasto, and chicken parmesan … even if covered with mozzarella cheese not parmesan.
• Soft drinks and milk in glass bottles. We’re drowning in plastics, so why not bring back those beverages in glass bottles? How many youngsters earned extra money beyond their “allowances” by collecting and returning the glass bottles to stores where they received a nickel for each one returned? That was real recycling and well behind its time!
• Telegrams. Reminiscent of World War II, Western Union brought good news, as well as bad. With today’s email, instant and private messages, who needs telegrams anymore? Today, we’re all the messengers who are bound to be shot.
Standing the test of time, vinyl records are making a popular comeback as are comic books, retro style furnishings and clothing, avant-garde architecture, eyeglasses, and keepsakes.
Maybe we’re yearning for simpler times in nostalgia, when neighbors were friends, civics and penmanship were taught in our schools, and history wasn’t engulfing us and passing us by. When artificial intelligence meant using CliffsNotes rather than reading the books.
If you haven’t seen Pleasantville, go have a look.
Bruce H. Joffe is publisher and creative director of Portugal Living Magazine, the thoughtful daily online periodical for people everywhere with Portugal on their minds. www.facebook.com/PortugalLivingMagazine
Olvera, our getaway home in southern Spain for the past 18 years, has plenty to be proud about … not the least is its designation – honored by a Spanish postage stamp – as Spain’s “Best Rural Destination” in 2022. The town of 8,500 straddles the intersection of Cádiz, Sevilla, and Málaga provinces.
Outside its town hall fly the flags of Olvera, Cádiz, Spain … and a rainbow flag.
Now, I just learned another reason for Olvera to be proud: On June 23rd, it will be hosting a Gay Pride event for its residents and guests.
Spain is said to be the first European country and the second in the world with more LGBT+ people, according to a study by Ipsos, which holds a 4.2 out of 5-star rating on Trustpilot with over 45,695 customer reviews. Spain is designated as the third country in the world that most supports the right to equal marriage. And, like Portugal, Spain protects LGBT rights and validates the “diversity of the collective.” The survey also corroborates that Spain is a country in which there is majority support for proposed measures to improve the integration of trans people, a country that embraces “diversity, freedom, and LGBT+ pride … that advances by leaps and bounds without (a) brake.”
According to the survey, “Spain is where respondents are most likely to say they are gay or lesbian (6%), while Brazil and the Netherlands are where they are most likely to say they are bisexual (both 7%). Japan is the country they are least likely to identify as either gay or lesbian (less than 1%) and as bisexual (1%).”
The Iberian nations of Spain and Portugal are known for their inclusiveness.
Like Lisbon and Porto, Madrid and Barcelona have huge Gay Pride celebrations and marches each year. Events honoring LGBTQI+ people take place in other major Spanish cities, too: Sevilla, Córdoba, and Torremolinos … as well as such gay-renown destinations as Ibiza, Sitges, and Benidorm.
But Olvera?
One of the “pueblos blancos” in the province of Cádiz, Andalucía, Olvera has much to commend—including its positive attitude toward sexual minorities that are marginalized and condemned elsewhere.
So, it behooves “queer” people to call attention to their history of cruelty, mistreatment, and entrapment, along with its contributions to civilization at large in countries like Spain and Portugal where gay rights are endorsed and supported.
We learned about the June 23rd event over lunch from two female friends, a kitchen designer and her retired spouse. They knew the date and location it was to take place – in a public square on the main street of town, directly opposite the Iglesia de la Victoria, one of Olvera’s pristine churches – but not the time.
I thought about the LGBT people we are acquainted with in Olvera who might be there:
> The beautiful young man with sometimes pink dyed hair who owns an upscale furniture shop and has won multiple awards for his interior designs—commercial, residential, and dressing the windows of local shops;
> The male couple who live down the block of our former house who enjoy a long-distance relationship, spending time together in Olvera, Australia, and elsewhere;
> The respected and educated man of magnificent color who lives, for now, in Olvera but spends each month working in London;
> The adorable waiter at our favorite restaurant who I’ve been innocently teasing and playfully flirting with for several years;
> The reclusive couple living two doors from ours but won’t speak to us, for whatever their reasons;
> The tall, dark, and steamy recent arrival from Venezuela whose eyes locked with mine momentarily;
> The lady in red who – rumor has it – enjoys her bread buttered on both sides;
> The British couple who lived here for several years, opening and closing a few businesses before returning to England … but continue to visit time and again;
> The colorful youngsters with ink covering their bodies and piercings from lip to nose. Maybe they are the “Q’s” in the increasingly complex jargon of LGBT syntax.
We Americans tend to be more priggish when it comes to carnal matters than the Mediterranean peoples. Sex is sex to them, nothing more and nothing less … without getting into issues of gender identity or sexual branding. They’re much more comfortable with themselves and their bodies. It’s not unusual for men to have slept with other men or women with women. Passion isn’t scrutinized or sanitized to subvert the prurient interest. The heat of the moment doesn’t result in being branded with a homophobic scarlet letter. Lust and sex between consenting adults are considered normal. It is what it is.
Pride, however, is all about identity … about standing tall in society without apologizing or denying who we are. If it’s a moment to be silly, too, so be it.
Gay Pride also satisfies something we seriously miss when living abroad: a sense of community … of people like us that transcends individuals and friendships, regardless of where we are on Kinsey’s scale and spectrum.
It’s also an occasion for friends and allies to stand together with us.
If we’ve learned anything from the Trump years and thereafter, it’s as Streisand sang: “People who need people are the luckiest people in the world. We’re children, needing other children. And yet letting a grown-up pride hide all the need inside, acting more like children than children.”
You bet we’ll be there at Olvera’s Gay Pride!
Bruce Joffe is publisher and creative director of Portugal Living Magazine. Follow the magazine daily at www.facebook.com/PortugalLivingMagazine. It’s free!
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
"Exactly!" 