The Times They Are A-Changin'

---

"Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a–changin'."

Bob Dylan

---

If you follow current events, it's virtually impossible not to be aware of how the times are changing. But, in many respects, the changes that are occurring — or seem to be occurring — may be more in terms of attitudes than in actual policies.

Thus far, anyway.

One such change is making its presence felt in journalism. Daily newspapers, by and large, failed to anticipate the growing influence the internet would have and thus were unprepared when the recessionary times cut deeply into their advertising revenue.

Advertisers, understandably, want to invest in media where their appeals will be seen. When I was in journalism school, we were told, over and over, that we were writing with the intention of being read so we needed to tailor our writing in such a way that would grab the readers' attention and hold it. We were competing for the readers' time, we were told.

Well, there's also competition for advertising dollars, and a savvy advertiser will look for ways to get more bang for the buck. As a trained journalist, I have serious doubts that the internet can ever do the job of covering the news as efficiently as print journalists, but newspaper readership has been declining, and, from a business perspective, I don't blame advertisers for turning to the internet. To borrow a phrase from Willie Sutton, that's where the money is.

If newspapers are going to survive, they have to re–think their attitudes about the internet. They may be able to co–exist with the internet, but they will have to find a way to do so within an online culture that has grown accustomed to not having to pay for many services.

Striding confidently into the future cannot be done if one foot remains planted in the past.

Meanwhile, social policies are changing. In four states — Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont — same–sex marriages are legally recognized, giving same–sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

Well, actually, the law in Iowa will be effective in about three weeks, and the law in Vermont will be effective in September. And, at the moment, such a law in California is in flux. Same–sex marriage is being debated in Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia.

And civil unions, which lack some of the legal benefits of marriage, are being considered in Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

---

---

Many religious groups are reacting negatively to this, but it's a wave that seems unstoppable and, in many ways, opposition to it seems legally unsupportable.

As it always seems to be, when the facts can't be used to bolster an argument, an appeal to fear is made.

For example, a parallel often has been drawn between same–sex marriage and interracial marriage. Opposing the former, it is said, is the same as opposing the latter a few decades ago. But opponents of same–sex marriage have claimed that the two are not the same, that interracial marriage still involves partners of opposite sexes and, thus, can promote procreation.

It's odd, to me, that procreation should be used in this way. Procreation was used for many years to resist interracial marriage. Racists waged blistering campaigns against unions that could result in the births of "mongrel" children. Now, hypothetical children are being used as weapons again. But it seems, to me, that opponents of same–sex marriage will be as unsuccessful as the foes of interracial marriage were.

By the way, out–of–wedlock births account for two–fifths of all births, according to the latest data.

And, in a society that frets more and more about promiscuity in adult relationships, how can anyone argue against people who want the legal right to make a public commitment?

Finally, there is the subject of marijuana legalization.

It's getting harder for critics of marijuana to use facts to support their case. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, a top biomedical journal that makes its research articles going back to 1924 freely available online, punctures holes in the notion that cannabis can cause cancer. In fact, according to JCI, it kills cancer cells.

Along with the studies showing that marijuana is beneficial to people with serious diseases, there is a growing chorus of commentators who argue that legalizing marijuana makes sense. Legalization would save billions in enforcement costs while providing billions in tax revenue. Casual users would no longer be ostracized, abusers would be treated, not jailed, and millions of jobs would be created.

And the black market that is the cause of the marijuana–related deaths would vanish.

The president resists the tide, however, perhaps insisting on clinging to the "Reefer Madness" myth — now more than seven decades old — as a way to connect with right–wing voters who oppose him on other issues.

But the times, they are a–changin', Mr. President. And if your time to you is worth savin', then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone.

For the times they are a–changin'.