Tuesday, March 11, 2008
I Had a Dream
I had a dream the other night and in it I was getting married. Not only was I getting married again but I was getting married in the same Mormon chapel where I had married Shawn and the same Bishop was presiding. But this time he was angry. This time I was marrying Sara.
In the dream I was standing in the wings of the church with my bride to be (yes, I was wearing a tux with a top hat no less, though I never would!) and we were peeking in on the Bishop as he explained to the congregation that this wasn't really a wedding, that it was only a commitment ceremony and that it was not sanctioned by God. Sara and I giggled. It was clear that the Bishop didn't want to be there, and was doing this only under some kind of extreme duress.
I've been thinking a lot about all of this lately. Of course I've been thinking about the extremely personal, lovey side of it all because of my relationship with Sara. No proposals have been made just yet, but we're both girls and girls think about these things. We've discussed it some and hypothesized about it here and there.
But I've also been thinking about it because gay marriage is a big HOT ISSUE right now in politics. In fact Oregon (where Sara lives) recently passed a law to allow same sex 'Domestic Partnerships'. It was supposed to go into effect on January 1st but was put on hold until February because of an out of state Christian group. I haven't been able to track down the exact wording of this law but it allows a lot of the rights of a marriage without actually getting to call it a marriage.
Washington also has a similar law in place with slightly less rights afforded. It all seems like progress. It is, I know it is and it's just a matter of working out kinks. Like the fact that Washington and Oregon are neighboring states but don't recognize the Registered Domestic Partnerships of the other state. A Domestic Partnership registered in Washington means nothing in Oregon, which is silly. I read the other day that the Domestic Partnership application in Oregon has a spot on it where you can change your name for free just like a marriage license. But having done that, the Federal Government doesn't recognize the partnership or the name change! In order for the Feds to recognize it you still have to pay $200 (I think it was) and change your name! That's just shit!
I'm getting tired of the whole gay marriage thing. I've read gay commentary saying that Domestic partnerships treat same sex couples as second class citizens and nothing less than marriage is acceptable. I've heard others say that Domestic Partnerships are exactly the same as marriage. Some even say that it's better somehow because The straight people have screwed up marriage enough so it's better to start with something new. LOL
Here's my opinion.
The government needs to step back and see just what their role is in a marriage. At it's core a marriage is simply a contractual agreement between consenting adults agreeing to be financially responsible for each other and any children that might result. There's more to it, yes, details, lots of them. But at the very core that's all it is. It's not about love it's not about religion or the actual ability to bear children, it's about money!
I made vows when I was married but those vows, as far as I know, are not legally binding. If they are I'm kinda screwed, as is Shawn. Presumably the marriage liscense included some kind of explanation of what I was signing up for (and giving away) but I sure didn't read it! Does anyone? I was 20 and young and happy to be getting married. I had no idea I was actually signing a contract. LOL
Anyway, my point is that people should be able to sign a financial agreement of support for anyone they want to be financially saddled to for the life of the contract. Maybe that's a cold way to look at marriage but denying people the right to be financially saddled to one another just because they are of the same sex seems cold too, not to mention ridiculous!
My radical crazy belief then, is that the government should just stop issuing marriage licenses! Let the government govern the only part they're really concerned with, the money. Let the government issue only Domestic Partnerships, Civil Unions, Contracts of Mutual Financial Support or whatever you might want to call it, for everyone looking to be contractually bound together be they straight or gay or whatever. If marriage means more than that to people they should consult the proper authorities. If marriage is about shared religious beliefs then let them go to a Minister, Priest or Rabbi to have the partnership OK'd by their God. If it's about love and family then they should stand up before their families and friends and pronounce their love and commitment. But the government needn't concern themselves with how people celebrate their partnership beyond the fact that they now have financial responsibility for another person.
And can we please end this whole choice/born that way debate? It doesn't matter. All people deserve civil rights. We can be born a minority or choose to belong to a particular religion. It makes no difference if a person is born gay or chooses to be gay. The point is they are.
Comments-[ comments.]
In the dream I was standing in the wings of the church with my bride to be (yes, I was wearing a tux with a top hat no less, though I never would!) and we were peeking in on the Bishop as he explained to the congregation that this wasn't really a wedding, that it was only a commitment ceremony and that it was not sanctioned by God. Sara and I giggled. It was clear that the Bishop didn't want to be there, and was doing this only under some kind of extreme duress.
I've been thinking a lot about all of this lately. Of course I've been thinking about the extremely personal, lovey side of it all because of my relationship with Sara. No proposals have been made just yet, but we're both girls and girls think about these things. We've discussed it some and hypothesized about it here and there.
But I've also been thinking about it because gay marriage is a big HOT ISSUE right now in politics. In fact Oregon (where Sara lives) recently passed a law to allow same sex 'Domestic Partnerships'. It was supposed to go into effect on January 1st but was put on hold until February because of an out of state Christian group. I haven't been able to track down the exact wording of this law but it allows a lot of the rights of a marriage without actually getting to call it a marriage.
Washington also has a similar law in place with slightly less rights afforded. It all seems like progress. It is, I know it is and it's just a matter of working out kinks. Like the fact that Washington and Oregon are neighboring states but don't recognize the Registered Domestic Partnerships of the other state. A Domestic Partnership registered in Washington means nothing in Oregon, which is silly. I read the other day that the Domestic Partnership application in Oregon has a spot on it where you can change your name for free just like a marriage license. But having done that, the Federal Government doesn't recognize the partnership or the name change! In order for the Feds to recognize it you still have to pay $200 (I think it was) and change your name! That's just shit!
I'm getting tired of the whole gay marriage thing. I've read gay commentary saying that Domestic partnerships treat same sex couples as second class citizens and nothing less than marriage is acceptable. I've heard others say that Domestic Partnerships are exactly the same as marriage. Some even say that it's better somehow because The straight people have screwed up marriage enough so it's better to start with something new. LOL
Here's my opinion.
The government needs to step back and see just what their role is in a marriage. At it's core a marriage is simply a contractual agreement between consenting adults agreeing to be financially responsible for each other and any children that might result. There's more to it, yes, details, lots of them. But at the very core that's all it is. It's not about love it's not about religion or the actual ability to bear children, it's about money!
I made vows when I was married but those vows, as far as I know, are not legally binding. If they are I'm kinda screwed, as is Shawn. Presumably the marriage liscense included some kind of explanation of what I was signing up for (and giving away) but I sure didn't read it! Does anyone? I was 20 and young and happy to be getting married. I had no idea I was actually signing a contract. LOL
Anyway, my point is that people should be able to sign a financial agreement of support for anyone they want to be financially saddled to for the life of the contract. Maybe that's a cold way to look at marriage but denying people the right to be financially saddled to one another just because they are of the same sex seems cold too, not to mention ridiculous!
My radical crazy belief then, is that the government should just stop issuing marriage licenses! Let the government govern the only part they're really concerned with, the money. Let the government issue only Domestic Partnerships, Civil Unions, Contracts of Mutual Financial Support or whatever you might want to call it, for everyone looking to be contractually bound together be they straight or gay or whatever. If marriage means more than that to people they should consult the proper authorities. If marriage is about shared religious beliefs then let them go to a Minister, Priest or Rabbi to have the partnership OK'd by their God. If it's about love and family then they should stand up before their families and friends and pronounce their love and commitment. But the government needn't concern themselves with how people celebrate their partnership beyond the fact that they now have financial responsibility for another person.
And can we please end this whole choice/born that way debate? It doesn't matter. All people deserve civil rights. We can be born a minority or choose to belong to a particular religion. It makes no difference if a person is born gay or chooses to be gay. The point is they are.
