Culture: February 2004 Archives

We had dinner last night with our charming friends Chris and George. (George officiated our wedding and Chris was our witness.) They made quiche, and the other dinner guest (a gorgeous boy named Joseph who had eyes like Elijah Wood) made some delightful poached pears for dessert. Chris is working on a web site with information about gay marriage and religion, and we talked a bit about that. We also started planning their wedding, somewhat hopefully, perhaps. It's sort of bittersweet to talk about a longtime pair being able to marry after years of discrimination; we still don't know how the court case will go, although the courts give hope when they don't capitulate immediately to the Religious Right.

The highlight of the evening was right after dinner, when George and Noel went into the music room and played a delightful duet for piano and organ. They play well together, and seem to have a good time doing it, too. Last weekend, Chris and I went up into the studio and painted for a few hours while they played together. It was all very arty and sophisticated of us (except that I got thalo blue all over myself and everything I touched).

We're planning to spend a week or two together at George's summer house in Maine this summer, probably in August sometime (subject to graduate school schedules, of course). We want to bring Rosie out and see whether she'll swim out to the island alongside the canoe. I think she'd have a great time there. It'll be nice, too, to get away from the rest of the world and just relax. We're planning to drive across, stopping in Ithaca to visit my parents and possibly in Minneapolis to see Noel's. I'm looking foward to the trip, even though it will add a certain urgency to the construction shedule for the workshop we want to build in our backyard, and it may come just as I'm making arrangements to move across the country for graduate school.

I didn't really appreciate how hard it can be for a lawyer to be forced to defend a position he doesn't believe in until I read this article on CNN. It seems that Gov. Schwartzenegger wants Attorney General Bill Lockyer to put a stop to gay marriage, but Lockyer doesn't support discrimination:

Attorney General Lockyer posted a statement on his Web site saying that it was "the duty of my office to defend that law against this challenge by the city and county of San Francisco, and allow the courts to determine whether the city has acted illegally."

But, he said, his own opinions lean decidedly to equality.

"As a lifelong defender of civil rights, due process and equal protection for all, I do not personally support policies that give lesser legal rights and responsibilities to committed same-sex couples than those provided to heterosexual couples," he said.

"That is why I have and continue to strongly support extending the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples through domestic partnerships and civil union statutes," he said.

You go, Bill.

I'm overjoyed that Judge Ronald Quidachay refused to block the marriages taking place downtown.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay denied the request on the grounds that the conservative family values group, the Campaign for California Families, had not presented evidence showing that irreparable harm would be caused by allowing the weddings to continue.

And really, what is the harm? Even if the marriages are not allowed to stand, the worst thing that happens is that... well, a bunch of marriages are annulled and families torn apart, but the impact on the lives of the anti-family contingent (erm, that would be the religious groups opposing legal marriage, which sounds really odd to me) is and would be nill.

Which makes me wonder why they oppose the marriages in the first place, except that I know the answer to that: they're blinded by hate. How else could they possibly avoid seeing the irony of the message they are giving with this:

about a dozen protesters carrying signs that read "Trust Jesus" and "Prepare to meet that God" milled about outside the elegant copper-domed civic building.

I would not want to meet God with so much hatred in my heart. I certainly do not think I could look Jesus in the eye and say I had lived by his teachings if I'd done what those people are doing.

In other news, Sandoval County, New Mexico had its own little burts of civil disobedience today, before being slammed by the attorny general.

Nothing makes me happier than seeing so many people lining up to reaffirm the importance of marriage and family on Valentine's Day. The people who want to have these marriages annulled should think long and hard about whether they want on their consciences the destruction of family and love, and the weakening of respect for the sanctity of marriage that they appear to be demanding. When the government can decide to annul one kind of marriage, it can decide to annul them all.

[added later...]

Think that's not too terrifying? Well, the government keeps telling us that the reason why heterosexual marriage is so important is that it is the breeding ground of children. If the government granted the right to marry only to fertile adults who planned to have children, then a large number of marriages could be annulled, including those of parents who are past their childbearing years, or adults like myself who are unable to have children. If we decide that marital fidelity is important -- and it is, to the government, because infidelity is grounds for divorce -- then marriages of partners who cheat can be summarily annulled, whether the parties concerned wished to work out the problem or not. If we decide that marriage is God-given, and a privilege of living a faithful Christian life, then marriages of non-Christians or the doubting can be annulled at the government's will. You may think these are all unlikely to happen, but they have happened before in history, and nothing is preventing them from happening again.

The sad truth is that most people who oppose the freedom to marry oppose it because they're afraid of gay people. Afraid to live by Jesus's commandment to love one another as he loved us. Afraid that somehow, if gay people could marry, it might not be so hard to be gay, and fewer gay people who voluntarily closet themselves. And then we'd all have to think about our sexuality and capacity for love, rather than letting other people tell us what is right.

God gave us free will, and it is a sin to ignore that gift and let other people tell us what is right and what is wrong. When Judgement Day comes, you will be judged by the moral choices you made, not by how obedient you were to an earthly authority. I wish the "righteous" would think about that when they pray to God to hurt people whose only sin is love.

OK, enough fire and brimstone for the day.

Mattel sent out a press release today stating that after 43 years together, Barbie and Ken have broken up.

Barbie and Ken "feel it's time to spend some quality time -- apart."

Which is just celebrity-speak for "Barbie found out Ken was sneaking around with Skipper and dumped him. She gets the Dream House, and he's going to be sleeping in the convertible until he finds a new place."

The real question is, how is heterosexual marriage as an institution going to weather this blow, on top of the shocking behaviour of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom? I fear for my marriage, readers.

News yesterday was that Ohio's governor passed a restrictive religious definition of marriage as law. This makes Ohio the 38th state to ban gay marriage, and one of a few to refuse to allow state benefits to unmarried heterosexual domestic partners. It also makes it that much more likely that a constitutional ban on gay marriage -- however unconstitutional it might be to establish religion like that -- will pass.

Taft, a Republican, denied assertions that the law promotes intolerance. He said the new law would send a strong positive message to children and families.

And that message is: the message that God sent with his Only Son is ridiculous. We should not be required to love everybody and let God decide who is a sinner when Judgement Day comes. Only those who are convinced of their righteousness should be allowed to live in peace and love on this Earth.

Not only does the law fly in the face of Jesus's teachings -- an argument which would hold no water if we were not talking about people who profess to be true Christians acting in accordance with their faith -- but it does little or nothing to make things better for families and children in Ohio or elsewhere.

For example, one thing that might make marriages stronger is if only people who were really prepared for marriage could marry. But in Ohio, there are almost no restrictions on marriage, other than heterosexuality.

Sure, there's restrictions regarding consanguinity, but there's no waiting period, no blood test, no required premarital counselling. You can get married with parental or court permission at 16. Furthermore, they even recognize common-law marriages that took place before 1991 (and are one of only a very few states to do so). § 3105.12 of the Ohio code says, "Except as provided in division (B) of this section, proof of cohabitation and reputation of the marriage of a man and woman is competent evidence to prove their marriage, and, in the discretion of the court, that proof may be sufficient to establish their marriage for a particular purpose."

So basically, it's really easy to get married in Ohio. It's also really easy to get divorced or to annul a marriage (if you change your mind, you only need to attest that the marriage was not consummated). Nobody's been able to explain how banning gay people (some of whom are parents) from getting married makes things better for families and children. I think families would be better off if the state instituted a 6-month waiting period before allowing a marriage, with mandatory premarital counselling.

Speaking of mandatory counselling, is it easier to get an abortion than to get married? Nope. I mean, abortion kills a child, right, and a badly thought-out marriage just makes a child's life a living hell. § 2317.56 of the Ohio code indicates that 24 hours before abortion, a woman must be provided with propaganda designed to convince her not to abort, information on the nature of abortion and its risks, the nature of pregnancy and its risks, a doctor's estimate of the age of her baby, and counselling. So it's better to talk a woman out of abortion and let another unwanted child be born into a household that is probably poor, where it will be resented and probablyt abused, then it is to make sure that every marriage is a strong marriage.

So basically, we're not talking about a state that really, really cares about the welfare of families and children. There's plenty of childhood poverty in Ohio; children still go hungry at night there. Women are still abused by their husbands or boyfriends, children are still abused by their male relatives or family connections. There's no special aura of security around Ohio keeping child abductions or sexual abuse from happening there. None of this addresses any of the real problems actually facing children and families in Ohio.

All it does is keep committed couples from marrying.

If your pup is a touch overweight, fear not! A simple item of clothing can smooth out that bulgy middle and give her the figure of her puppyhood.

Margaret Cho has a blog.

I didn't know it until I read this online chat with Peter Sprigg, Director of Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Reasearch Council, but it turns out that people like me, women who cannot have children and yet have the gall to get married, are in fact partially responsible for the erosion of marriage as an institution:

Homosexual relationships cannot result in the natural procreation of children, nor can they provide children with the many demonstrated advantages of being raised by both a mother and a father. These are among the central benefits of marriage to society.

This fits nicely into recent re-published bullshit research that "proves" that women who have miscarriages will die of cancer.

Every now and then somebody points me at a link that points me at a link that points me to a site with lots to read that's interesting and well-written. That's how I came across v-2 Organisation. Some articles to look for include a nice commentary on usable design (an easy route to my heart), this interesting take on the modern rebel's fashionable hatred for IKEA and Starbucks, and a nice piece on internationalization and culture. Check it out.

Somebody sent me a link to this odd little communal travel blogging site, including this nifty tool for making a map of countries you've visited. (There's also one for states, but mine is uninteresting because I've been to every state except Hawaii.)

This would just about kill her, if she weren't, alas, dead already. I mean, how can you miss with articles like "Larger Mini Designed to Make Germans Think They're Shrinking" and "Are You a Giant Lizard? You'd Be Surprised!"?

"So, I'm A Giant Lizard": What To Do If your doctor discovers that you are, in fact, a giant shape-shifting lizard, there are several basic steps to follow.

1. Don't Panic. It is important in moments of stress to remain cool. Since you're cold-blooded, that shouldn't be a problem. Don't chew your claws: it's not only a bad habit, but you're probably treif

2. Eat Your Physician. Not only you'll feel much better after a noshikeh, guess who won’t be violating doctor-patient confidentiality.

3. Ask Yourself Some Hard Questions. Find out what species you are; if you are a kindly species, go home to your family, and consider a career in pest control; if evil, go home to your family, and use them to build a nest.

In a recent column, Miss Manners suggests this method for dealing with a hot flash:

Miss Manners suggests confessing that you have the vapors, and holding the back of your hand to your forehead while saying, "Oh, dear, I feel one of my spells coming on."

I just about died.