I’ve just written a comment in the longest thread in which I’ve participated in Facebook. It’s about parking at a university. Which was defined by Clark Kerr, in The Uses of the University (1963) as something like a loose collection of faculties united by a common grievance about parking.
When I was younger, I used to run around both the nearby golf courses, public and private, 27 holes in all. Once older, I hoped to continue to walk there. When I say ‘around’, I mean on the perimeters, not on the actual fairways. Imagine my surprise when I was confronted one day on the public course by someone apparently performing as Basil Fawlty, ordering me to leave, and threatening to ‘make it illegal’ when I wished to discuss the rights and wrongs. Signs subsequently appeared around the course, supporting the tenant’s right to order people out.
Someone defined golf as ‘a good walk spoilt’. Having a golf course nearby used to be like having a large, quiet private garden. Now the walk is not just spoilt (for us all) but withdrawn.
In contrast, the signs on the fences of the Royal Fremantle Golf Course do not refuse access: they simply make the entrant aware of the dangers and responsibilities involved.
I’m starting to try to think about gay marriage. It seems to me that there are three aspects to marriage – four if you’re a theist.
1. ceremonial
2. contractual
3. religious
4. legal
Any two consenting adults could arrange a suitable ceremony – possibly conducted by a marriage celebrant, I would think, or even by a minister of some religion, I would imagine: tick 1 and 3. Then, instead of signing the conventional marriage register, they could sign a civil contract which had been drawn up. This might require a lawyer in the first instance, but could then circulate on the Web. This contract might have the parties engage in obligations similar to those laid down by statute; or not. Tick 2. This leaves whatever the state provides or requires. In my two experiences of marriage, this aspect was in no way a privilege, but just a lot of hassles to do with courts and property and children, and an excuse for government to get more money out of us to dissolve the contract once it no longer applied. So I don’t know why anyone at all would want the fourth aspect of marriage, whether gay or not. I expect the usual flood of comments.