Firstly, however, another tragedy that I have been paying much closer attention to is not a death but a diagnosis – that of Christopher Hitchens’ esophageal cancer (see interview from not too long afterward). Though Hitchens manages to anger even me from time to time, he has always been an inspiration – an assertive atheist, a brilliant journalist and someone who manages to be charming and funny at the same time as being contrarian. The outlook is grim for him as the type of cancer he has has a very low survival rate. In the interview, the interviewer asks him about the question of “why me” and Hitchens rightly says it is a silly question that one must “bat away”, essentially admitting that his mind would have made a stop at that question at one point. Meaning, even someone who recognizes that it is egocentric to think the universe is testing, punishing or sending a message to one just because one happens to be suffering or dying can’t help but at least begin to think so – at least in the West. Notice that Kon’s letter lacks even the brief mention of the question.

About his own state, it seems Kon sees his death not as a tragedy upon himself and despite being an important artist, he doesn’t necessarily seem to see it as a tragedy upon those close to him, but rather as him shirking his responsibilities to those close to him. He sees it as shameful that he dies before his parents and dies with work left unfinished (and his mother feels ashamed that she didn’t grant him a stronger body – I challenge you to read that part without choking up). This might seem strange to a Westerner. Clearly, it is not his fault that he got cancer. However, what is the self anyway? You are the product of many chemical happenings inside a dermal barrier as well as countless influences from outside. There is no true barrier between where you end and your environment ends. This means any ill effect which you had any part in bringing about must be a source of shame for you. That your son did something bad isn’t a mere taint to your family image but a reflection of you. How could the product of your upbringing not be? The Western view of separating individuals and precisely laying blame has its advantages but it also has its absurdities and has the infamous Achilles’ heel of free will or lack thereof.

Of course I’m making overly sweeping generalizations here. See this as me comparing two individuals, one being Japanese and one being English and that their respective attitudes are some reflection of their parent national cultures, though the true relationship may be much more complex and tortuous than I’m suggesting. Even when one is unusual, one’s habits are still liable to reflect the parent culture as a reaction to it and not a mere random deviation. Hitchens is anti-Christian which is a very different thing from being a non-Christian, as most Japanese (including, in all likeliness, Kon) are. Also, It’s difficult to directly compare someone’s reaction to imminent death to someone else’s reaction to a diagnosis that is quite likely to be deadly. Just the same, some things jump out and make me think.

This article makes good points and I basically agree that the government ought not be in the marriage business. Regulation of marriage has a long history as a tool to suppress religious minorities. However, this article and most arguments made along these lines misses important points.

Firstly, not everything the government provides in a civil marriage is currently possible through contracts alone. One is a way in for the non-American in an international couple. It is exceedingly difficult to become a citizen or to get a green card, but both of these options are fast-tracked when marrying an American. The sad fact is, even with gay marriage legal in California, the Defense of Marriage Act ensures that state-recognized marriages aren’t so recognized and afforded this.

My wife is Japanese and I’m glad that the government took a break from their otherwise restrictive immigration laws for our sake just because we got married, so that she can get a green card (and I have the same opportunity if we choose to move to Japan). Does that make me selfish? Well, I would like international couples that happen to be same-sex be afforded the same opportunity. So, if one wants to fight for the government getting out of the marriage business, one must simultaneously fight for removing the restrictions that marriage provides a way out of, lest they place an undue burden on international couples.

I must also mention what I call the “pansy Libertarian position” which is to avoid the issue by saying the government should get out of the marriage business but fighting neither that nor to the restrictions a marriage gets one out of and also by not morally supporting gay marriage. Well, I’m not a pansy Libertarian; I’m a he-man left-libertarian and I say as long as the government is in the marriage business (and let’s face it, it doesn’t look willing to leave it) it ought to allow gay marriage. One of the cornerstones of a good society is eccentricity and social experimentation and as long as people get worked up over something as banal and harmless (perhaps even beneficial, as I touched on in this post) as gay marriage, genuine bona fide eccentrics won’t stand a chance.