A Blue Herring

A Blue Herring

(A class lecture on the art of wordsmithing)

We in Virginia have just elected a Democrat, Mark Herring, as our new attorney general.  I expect that most Virginia residents naturally think that part of Mr. Herring’s job is to uphold and defend the constitution of the state of Virginia.  But, instead, as one of his first actions, he decided that he wouldn’t attempt to defend the state law prohibiting same sex marriage.  Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

In one of the most diabolical and illogical decisions that any rational man can make, he has arbitrarily decided that he cannot defend Virginia’s constitution in this instance because there may be some contention that Virginia’s laws are inconsistent with federal mandates.  Even though the man has a law degree and is assumed to be intelligent, he has decided that he can interpret constitutional law as he sees fit, rather than attempting to defend the laws that the citizens of Virginia have voted for and approved while also waiting for this issue to be definitively settled by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Earth to Herring:  Same sex marriage is not universally mandated by any definitive law at this point.  The issue is still being debated in the courts of our great land.  Of course, proponents are chewing on the edges of the issue and are making strides to make same sex marriage the law of the land.  However, that hasn’t happened as of today. 

But, some of the most interesting aspects of Mr. Herring’s actions are the reasons he puts forth for not defending the state law.  For one, he talked to his kids and they convinced him that same sex marriage is a good thing.  For him, it didn’t matter that a majority of Virginia citizens see the issue differently.  In his mind, his kids take precedence over millions of Virginia citizens. 

Then, in a fit of madness, he looked within himself and experienced a cultural epiphany…a brain fart, if you will.  He unilaterally decided that he didn’t want Virginia to be on the wrong side of history.  The wrong side of history?  Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

I hate to lecture Mr. Herring, but he should know that there is no wrong side of history, imho. Of course, there are mistakes that man has made throughout history.  We have changed and adapted as we have learned.   I think that those who are quick to lay blame are judging actions through the lens of hindsight, rather than through the eyes of collective wisdom which is added to every day that we exist.   To me, there is no right or wrong side to history.  There is only documentation of what has occurred.  Of course, we can judge what is right or wrong, but only within the current cultural and social context.  In order to learn and adapt to an ever changing world, we shouldn’t need to dwell on applying blame for past actions.  Instead, we should focus on learning and adapting, based on the mistakes which we have corrected over time.

For example, Hitler’s actions in WWII could be considered to be on the wrong side of history.  I just don’t perceive him or his actions in that manner, semantically speaking.  Obviously, he was a bad person and his ideas and actions were wrong.  We in the western world needed to step up and defeat him.  However, my contention is that to describe Hitler as being on the wrong side of history is illogical.  History doesn’t have a right of wrong side.  History is only a record of what has occurred in the past.  We learn from the past and we attempt to correct our mistakes and build on our successes which are defined within the current cultural milieu.   

And, my contention is that we shouldn’t arbitrarily decide that we absolutely know what the future holds and base our present decisions and actions on that supposition.  Certainly, we can suppose a future which we think may be better for mankind and work toward those goals.  But, we shouldn’t unilaterally decide to ignore the present laws of the land and ignorantly assume that over half of the Virginia voters are on the wrong side of history.  That type of decision making belongs only in the dark mythological realm of Nostradamus and others of that ilk.

POSTSCRIPT:

Most of the readers of this text might think twice about my assertions regarding notions about the wrong side of history.  I agree that my arguments are weak.  However, I think that if you tended toward that specific belief, you would also tend to agree with what I said. And, I think that you might also agree that the art of wordsmithing can be worked to its maximum by creative writers and can convince some unaware readers to accept notions which aren’t necessarily true or germane to a discussion.

Just be aware of what you read.  Don’t be taken in by the cleverness of the author.  Instead, look at the facts on both sides of any argument and then make the best decision you can.

Class dismissed.