August 07, 2010

• Hooray for Arnold! It makes me cheerful and gay to think that this might finally be made right. Although, I do wish they'd not call it marriage. If you phrase it in terms of a legal contract, and allow anyone--siblings, parent/child, etc--any two adults of contractual age--to have all the legal rights and responsibilities of the married state, and have the federal government mandate that contract throughout the states, then it would take the wind out of the sails of those idjuts that want to "preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman." One the one hand, I realize that semantic difference does take something away from the agenda to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate relationship, but on the other, I believe the gains in rights--right to inheritance, ability to gain insurance coverage, recognition of any and all licit agreements within that state, would be the needed major step. If a homosexual couple then wants to marry in some sort of ceremony, fine, but the legal contract would be separate from that. I'm not expressing this very well, but I blame it on lack of sleep and decaf coffee.
• Lay off that decafe <:(1)
• I can understand why Arnold's doing this now; he's fully lame-ducked so he doesn't have to worry about political ramifications* of anything. When Prop 8 came up on the ballot he was generally uninvolved, and probably the only reason he wasn't openly pro-gay-marriage then was the fear of having the entire Republican Party turn against him, which would have made him totally irrelevant for the last two years of his term. Then, when the lawsuit came up, he was in full agreement with Attorney General Brown NOT to defend it. But with HIS NAME as Governor as the "vs.", this case will probably be his most prominent placement in the History Books so he wanted to make damn sure there's a footnote that he was on the record being on the Civil Rights side. * Ramification: A sex act between two male sheep... HELP... ME... I... CAN'T... STOP... MAKING... SILLY... DEFINITIONS...
• Ramification = Intubation
• Bluehorse...that is SO well put... thank you for that statement!
• Blue Horse - what? This has to do with civil rights. Nothing to do with agendas or homosexual or "calling it marriage" or siblings. Siblings? I'm sorry I don't understand what you're talking about.
• The French system has two marriages: a civil marriage and an optional church marriage for those who want it. It's important to me, personally, that definitions of marriage that claim it is only for the purpose of procreation be rejected. My wife and I chose not to have kids. She's had her tubes tied. Ours is not some sort of sham marriage, even though we were married by a judge at a Bed and Breakfast. We have friends who were married in traffic court, and played with the magnetic cars while waiting for the judge to arrive. Their marriage is real. My grandfather remarried at age 70 to a woman about the same age. Theirs was also a real marriage. I am not willing to cede the definition of marriage to the religious. It's not something only for them.
• Thanks Huron Bob, I'm glad someone got my gist about making contracts for committment. Goofy/MCroft: I believe we're on the same page, and please remember I did mention I wasn't feeling too articulate. Yes, civil rights (contractual rights) for everyone is the issue. When you leave out luuuurv, hearts, flowers, the ring and the veil, the bottom line is that marriage is a CONTRACT between two people, and the default gender is a male and a female. There are over 1000 statutory rights, benefits, and obligations that are associated with this contractual state. Remember Goofy, everyone has an agenda, whether it's opposing homosexual unions or supporting them. Arnold's agenda may be to support this issue AND get his name in the history books--who knows? "Marriage" is one of those "trigger words" that gets panties in a twist constantly. There are people who define marriage in an extremely limited and traditional way: man and woman, procreation of children, paperwork in place, but the marriage is only made good by some priest/minister. Most people loosen up on their definition a tad: man and woman, paperwork in place, can be married at the circus by a clown--still legal. By this definition, the marriages that MCroft listed are legal unions of marriage, and most people--but perhaps not all--would agree with it. In the US, you MUST have a civil union--meaning paperwork in place and registered, contract filed, even if you want to go through the church for a religious ceremony. Actually, I'm not married in the eyes of God according to my (ex) church, because I didn't have a priest perform his mumbo-jumbo, but I'm sure as hell married here in the real world, and have been for nearly 30 years. (As opposed to the first church marriage that didn't last 3 years.) MCroft, you're jousting at straw men, because the joinings you brought up are all legal contracts in the US and the participants have all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage. Only a fringe minority will define marriage so narrowly as to exclude that. However your examples, as well as mine, all fall into the default definition that marriage is between a man and a woman. To suggest any kind of marriage doesn't meet that minimal default definition of a male and female within a marriage contract outrages and frightens a majority of conservative Americans who are willing to do ANYTHING to stop gays from being "married." Thus, using the word marriage to refer to civil rights immediately triggers a negative response and a shutdown in communication. However, if the issue is "Should two people be allowed to enter into a legal contract to entertain toward each other certain mutual rights and responsibilities?" much of the trigger response is limited, and the majority of the people get glazed eyes, become bored, and go off to watch 'Survivor.' And goofy, siblings might just come into play for this reason: I know of a pair of bachelor brothers in their 70's who have lived together for FIFTY years. One brother had a short-lived 2 year marriage to a woman and had a child, then divorced and moved in with his brother, and they raised the boy together. Over the years, both men have had sexual flings, but their "family unit" is the two of them. One of them has no insurance, and the other does, but he will bankrupt himself to provide for health care because the fuckin' insurance company will only allow certain parties to be co-insured. My belief is that they should be able to enter into a contract that will give them the statutory rights and privileges of a couple that have lived together for longer than most marriages last. A list of legal rights and benefits for a commitment contract.
• "... I know of a pair of bachelor brothers in their 70's who have lived together for FIFTY years." I had two great uncles that lived together well into their nineties. They were a real pair alright... a muscian and a mechanic who shared a farm with a goat.
• *Waits for Bluehorse to spell check me*
• No way you're suckerin' me into THAT trap! I'm no spelin' or, grammer Nazi. Pointing out the boo-boos of others is not in my character. That way leads to madness and being singled out for my own gratooitus and exsezzive mitsakes.
• Dan, I'll bet those two were characters indeed. That's exactly the kind of situation that would lend itself to a commitment contract for purposes of inheritance, insurance, etc. A contract between the uncles that is. Minus the goat.
• Don't mess with goats!
• Especially robo-goat!
• Better robo-goat than robo-goatse... And back on the subject of Schwarzenegger (always an entertaining side-issue), here's another actor-turned-California-politico (one I LIKE) saying it is okay to blame him for much of the state's mess.
• The Gov didn't understand the role of government? Which is... what? Cops and more cops? At least driving through California is not like running the gamut in New Jersey... Or, she seems to think that feeding the education bubble is the porpoise? It's an over priced BUBBLE that will burst without adding any more value, except to debt mongers... Or does this woman think that warehousing nonviolent offenders in BIGGER prisons is the ticket? At least Arnold wants to legalize pot. I only hope whats-her-name becomes governor and hands over the keys to her new mansion which will then become yet another holding tank. Bah!
• Hey, prison is a business. It needs more consumers. Encourage return customers! Recidivism rules! Cut costs, maximize profits! Get'cher McPenitentiary franchise now! The more prisoners inside, the more jobs for the rest of us.
• Schwarzenegger confesses...
• Surprise!