newlogoJune06.jpg (31063 bytes)

This Day in My History

2000:  The Last of Peggy
2001:  No Business Like It
2002:  The Fleecing of Beverly
2003:  The Think System
2004:  Not My President
2005Having the Time of Your Life

 


IN MY OPINION
"Sweet Charity"

Books Read in 2006
(Updated 10/30)

FUNNY THE VLOG
"A Salute to Opulence"

A Salute to Opulence
click here to download
click here for flash format

Mefeedia Video Archive


My Favorite Video Blogs

Desert Nut
Missbehavens

(for others, see Links page)

Look at these videos!
Man with Three Buttocks
Conservative Party Speech
Blood Donor
Self Defense Class
Graham Chapman's Funeral

(all Monty Python)


New on My flickr_logo.gif (801 bytes)
Boo at the Zoo


Constitution.jpg (14147 bytes)

Support liberty and justice for all


bombbutton.jpg (19319 bytes)

THAT'S WHY

4 November 2006

I wasn't really paying close attention to The Ellen Degeneres show when Sandra Bullock was on.  It's just one of those things that play in the background and let me know when an hour has passed (some people have clocks; I have television).

Apparently Bullock has recently married and I gather from what she was saying that her husband must race cars or something, because she was telling a story of how she came to marry him.

Apparently he was in an accident at the track (fortunately he was OK) and before she knew how he was, she overheard someone saying that the chaplain was coming.  She said that all she wanted was to go to him and be with him and then it hit her that she had no legal place in his life.  That's when she realized that she loved him enough to want to marry him.

Now that's a sweet story, but suppose instead of it being her boyfriend it was her girlfriend and all the circumstances were the same.  It might hit her that she had no legal place in the woman's life, but then it would also hit her that she could have no legal place in the life of the woman she loved.  (I thought it ironic that she should be discussing this with Ellen Degeneres, in fact.)

With the election just around the corner (thank goodness), and with the Supreme Court in New Jersey deciding (rightly) that gay couples deserved exactly the same rights as straight couples, gay marriage is back in the news again.  It's not as huge as it has been in previous elections, but it does pop up from time to time in campaign ads.

A woman on Senior Net, with whom I usually agree, wrote this the other day:

I for one believe in civil contracts for gays but flamboyant marriage ceremonies go against the grain for me. I am sorry if I offend anyone but that is the way I truly feel. I think gays should be able to leave property to their partners, I also believe that end of life issues should be able to be decided by their partners but I cannot call a civil contract marriage. Never!

I just don't understand.  In the first place, I'd like "flamboyant marriage ceremonies" defined.  Is she in favor of two same gender people going into a back room somewhere, with no friends along and whispering whatever magic words will give them this "civil contract" she favors and then slinking off before they are noticed?  Are two people who are making a lifelong commitment to one another, who are starting a life together, not to be allowed to have a celebration to commemorate the event?  Or is she thinking that only drag queens in full drag would marry?


Is this "flamboyant"? these women who have lived more than
50 years together, finally marrying in San Francisco?
(only to have the marriage invalidated 6 months later)

She brings up two (of more than 1400) rights which she believes gay couples deserve.  Now this woman lives in New Zealand, so she may not have been through the whole "separate but equal" experiment. Call me silly, but to me "equal" means "the exact same thing."

"Equal" means that every single thing that straight married couples get should be given to committed gay couples as well.  People seem to pick and choose and then decide that if you have the biggies that's enough.  "Enough" is not "equal."

When I pressed her on the whole "marriage thing," my New Zealand friend said.

civil contracts can be done by paper stamping it does not need a ceremony akin to marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Let Gays have their own term for their relationship formalities just as they have changed the term homosexual to gay. Heterosexuals would like to keep the term marriage for their relationship formalities. Surely we can have our rights too!

It's a word.  It's only a word.  The importance is not the kind of ceremony you have, but the kind of life you are going to live after the ceremony.  Do straight couples have a "right" to be the only ones who can celebrate commitment to each other?

I would love to think that in my lifetime I will make another wedding cake for Ellen and Shelly and that this time the marriage will not be taken away from them, but whenever I enter into discussions like this one, I am disheartened and think that it is going to take another generation before what is inevitably going to happen will actually take place.  It may come too late for Shelly and Ellen....or for Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon who may not live to see their union of more than 50 years finally recognized as a real Marriage.
 

PHOTO OF THE DAY

 

|

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

  

<--previous | next -->

Journal home | bio | cast | archive | links | awards |  Flickr | Bev's Home Page

 

This is entry #2410

Google


WWW www.funnytheworld.com