Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘house rules’

Life is a mystery. Both a beautiful one at times, and a disenchanting one at other times.

Since the beginning of 2010 life here has been mostly disappointing and disenchanting. I’ll recap some of it by pointing to this post.

The rest? Well, the youngest teen in our home was sent to spend half the summer with their other biologic parent (at our expense for the 3rd summer in a row) and the sibling of that teen was left behind here… because that out-of-town parent told that teen not to come out. This is the 1st time the two siblings have ever spent more than a day or 2 apart. The teen away from home visiting the out-of-town parent has been treated to a full court press — a veritable full-time red-carpet campaign to be convinced to go live with that parent. Without the older sibling there, the younger is pretty much a “sitting duck” for the manipulation there.

We shall see, near the end of next week, if that young person actually gets on the plane and returns home as scheduled (and ticketed) or if a whole new drama begins in the lives of the two siblings.

Read Full Post »

After Wednesdays landmark decision  to overturn Prop. 8 (California’s ban on same-sex marriage), several news shows highlighted coverage of the legal victory in the Prop. 8 case, and discussed the important move toward full marriage equality in America.

On MSNBC that night, Keith Olbermann replayed his special comment from 11/10/2008 — after Prop. 8 had won that night via “popular vote.” This may be one of the best rebuttals to the “re-defining marriage” mantra.

I keep hearing this term “re-defining” marriage. If this country hadn’t re-defined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it’s worse than that. If this country had not “re-defined” marriage, some black people still couldn’t marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not “Until Death, Do You Part,” but “Until Death or Distance, Do You Part.” Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don’t you, as human beings, have to embrace… that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling.  With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?


Read Full Post »

I saw this below quote posted somewhere yesterday after the news broke that Proposition 8 in California was overturned:

“9th Circuit Court in California overturns the rights of the people in today’s ruling on gay marriage. Remember the time when a majority ruled in this country?”

And that got me thinking.

So many of our important human rights decisions in America’s history would likely not have ever been made if it had been put to a popular vote–or up to majority rule.

What if, in 1865, the abolition of slavery was put to a vote instead of the 13th amendment being added to the Constitution? What would the outcome have looked like if the Civil Rights Act of 1875 had been put to a majority rule vote? During World War I, blacks served in the United States Armed Forces in segregated units. Pressure to end racial segregation in the government grew among African Americans and progressives after the end of World War II. On July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9981, ending segregation in the United States Armed Forces. Chances are that such an executive order at that time in American history never would have survived a popular vote by the majority rule. It is not a stretch to imagine what would have happened in the 1960’s if racial segregation was put to a vote instead of laws being passed against it. Such as with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I imagine that if that had been put to a “majority rule” popular vote back then — it never would have happened.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Even if a lot of people within a given State want to, rights are not supposed to be put up for a vote.

“Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” (Prop. 8 Trial)

Based on the evidence at trial, Judge Walker found:

1. “Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.”

2. “California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.”

3. “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. …”

4. “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.”

5. “The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.”

6. “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.”

7. “Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.”

8. “Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage.”

9. “Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.”

10. “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. …”

So, what’s next? That is not exactly clear. This issue will eventually go before the Federal Supreme Court as lawyers on both sides expect the ruling to be appealed and ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court during the next few years. And then eventually (hopefully) D.O.M.A. will be overturned — paving the way for Federal recognition of same-sex unions across State lines.


Read Full Post »

Till death do us part…  happily ever after… honey I’m pregnant!

Beautiful moments in life, unforgettable snapshots of living, timeless creation of life and love.

What happens when life takes a toll on love, and what once was mystical magical timeless and perfect becomes tears and distance and loss and pain. What a justice of the peace may have joined together, a judge of the court may have to divide asunder. I dare say that no two people who pledge their love and watch their love create life ever believe that their love will end one day–and that  the life that was brought forth from two will ever need to be divided between two (or more).

And yet that is what happens. The, young people, the ones who had nothing to do with the start of the love, or with the demise of the love often find themselves smack dab in the middle and torn.

Reminds me of an ancient tale. The story is told that people from surrounding nations came to hear King Solomon’s wisdom. He composed 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs. He wrote the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Although Solomon was a young king, he soon became known for his wisdom. The first and most famous incident of his discernment as a judge was when two women came to his court with a baby whom both women claimed as their own. Solomon threatened to split the baby in half. One woman was prepared to accept the decision, but the other begged the King to give the live baby to the other woman. Solomon then knew the second woman was the real mother.

Another very wise man once said, no matter how amicable any dissolution may start out, they all eventually turn ugly… therefore… get everything in writing. So, I suppose splitting hairs may be wise on some level… but splitting heirs…? (That does not mean that young people shouldn’t love and be loved freely by both of the parents who brought them into the world, rather it more refers to the “splitting” that happens when kids seem to be placed in the middle of the battle). I don’t pretend to have the answers… just more incomplete musings on these life matters this evening…

“Growing up is loosing some illusions, in order to acquire others.”

– Virginia Woolf

Read Full Post »

😉  …more later… (maybe…)

Read Full Post »