![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trenchkamenOn the way to lab, a guy asked me if I was registered to vote. When I said "yes", he said "You look like you would be." What does that mean?
It is pretty cut-and-dry. IT WILL AMEND THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN "ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN". NO LEGAL STATUS SIMILAR TO MARRIAGE WILL BE AWARDED TO ANY 'UNMARRIED' COUPLES. I KNOW HOW MY FRIENDS LIST FEELS ABOUT THIS ISSUE. THIS IS IN ALL CAPS SO EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE TIME TO READ THE WHOLE POST, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE ABSOLUTE MANDATE BEING PASSED WITH SOME MORE VAGUE ISSUES. It will also deny domestic partner benefits to unmarried couples (living together, seniors, etc), and take away their right to file a domestic violence report (not to say that other forms of violence reports cannot be filed, because assault is assault, but we’re entering Picking Semantics Territory, which is a public opinion-swaying tool). The gay marriage ruling is Draconian and sickening--a far-too absolute ruling tucked in with some rather more complicated tax-and-semantic rulings. It is a thoroughly right-wing (I'm independent; both wings suck to me), conservatively-driven, paranoid measure. We are a divided state, though mostly conservative; this isn't Texas or Massachusetts. Every vote matters. It would be super if the entire country could catch up with Canada and the United Kingdom and France and Spain and Belgium and The Netherlands and Germany and New Zealand and look at the European map; just look, but that is on another scale altogether (the Constitutional Amendment for the country). Let's at least do what we can in Arizona November 7, then tackle the big dogs. For all its faults, this is my country and my home, and it pains me to see such opposition to such basic rights being awarded to all Americans.
And another thing, STOP CALLING IT "PROTECT MARRIAGE ARIZONA". What does marriage need protection from? Extending its realm? It's an exclusive club? If you feel as though your marriage would be devalued if the fags and lezbos were allowed to collect health insurance for their significant others, make decisions in times of illness, etc, you are pathetic, and I pity you. Same if you think that marriage would be devalued if people were not allowed to report domestic violence unless it occurred in wedlock (again, assault is assault and can always be reported, but this is entering semantic nit-picking territory). Would you really be so bothered if Adam and Steve (or Eve and... I dunno, Jill?) were getting married, even if they have absolutely no relation to you? Would it really make your marriage any less loving and strong and validated? So what if you think Adam and Steve and Eve and Jill are going to hell. Let them. Just think of it as another of God's great tests; the temptation to follow That Gay Lifestyle is there because The Corrupt Liberal Government allows it, and only the truly strong will withstand that temptation, marry somebody with an opposite package of parts between their legs, and get to go to Heaven. Heaven will be less crowded, surely. Especially since people will not be involved in homosexual relationships unless they can attain a civil union.
Give me one example of how awarding marriages (or even civil unions, which are not as good under law) to homosexual couples would adversely effect society that does not involve society merely drifting further from conservative structures. Sure, it may be the end of the world to some, but not to all of us. Give me one reason other than that drift, in-of-itself, that is not complete bullshit. Don't give me anything about "security" and "stability" and "compatibility" and "taxes" and "cost"; I've read all of the arguments online tenfold times over. I want to hear something new I can't shoot down in two sentences or less. (Some I read, I must admit, were at least thought through, but I still ultimately cannot find reason to deny these rights any longer. Inconvenience? Hassle? So what. It was an inconvenience and a hassle to change the structure so that women could vote. So that slaves could be freed (Remember what happened to the Southern economy after that? Little bit inconvenient, I'd say.).)
If the definition of marriage to you includes "one man, one woman", super, but THAT IS NOT THE EXTENT OF THE DEFINITION TO EVERYBODY. NOT EVEN ALL HETEROSEXUALS. MANY OF THEM DEFINE MARRIAGE BY "LOVE" AND "COMPANIONSHIP" AND "FAMILY", EVEN IF FOR THEM, AS FOR HOMOSEXUALS, LOVE DOES KNOW A GENDER. There is so much more to marriage than what's between your legs. There is a universal love all of us share in our relationships, regardless of whether or not we're straight, swish, or double-gaters. It's what you feel when you hear your loved one laugh, or share an inside joke. Or something like that. And if you don't realize that, have a nice life, but don't impose your values on the rest of the state.
You know, if you really want to define the English word "marriage" as "the union between one man, one woman", that's swell, but what do we call that relationship people have when they commit to spend the rest of their lives together, for better or worse, till death do they part (theoretically, yes I know the divorce rate)? Let's call it a makromak. Or something. So not all makromaks are marriages, but all marriages are makromaks. It's just a specification. Realistically, though, I don't think that will fly if I present it to the Arizona legislature, so let's focus back on the idea that "marriage" has all of its socially-embedded connotations.
And, by the way, insofar as a relationship is only validated if it is in wedlock--yes, you don't start really, validlyloving somebody until you're married to them, true that, and while we're at it, let's keep women from being able to report "domestic violence" from their boyfriends, etc, even when they have children in the house with them. It's semantic, but let's remember the power of language, all things considered, even if We Intellectuals realize it is arbitrary (remember Newspeak). Not every voter and activist is an intellectual, and semantics do effect how the masses vote and react to issues. Let's keep single mothers from being able to collect employment benefits (yes, I realize it gets financially sticky to award benefits to a possibly transcient boyfriend, but let's pick all of this out on a separate bill, not have it ride on the back of NO GAY MARRAIGE OMG). Let's. What the hell. Do you honestly think you're going to discourage people from screwing around out of wedlock, analogous to the bullshit "let's prohibit giving contraceptives to unmarried couples" idea (yes, I know that is extreme and I'm not afraid of that happening anytime soon)? Is it so worth it, so sinful, that you must go to such lengths? My views have already been outlined on this attitude in general.
On the opposite side of things: I am still shocked and dismayed at Japan. If you think America is stagnated in conservative values, their constitution already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Don't let Utena and Subaru and Seishirou fool you. We do have it good in comparison. That it no way, shape, or form makes the denial of same-sex unions right in our own country, but it is a perspective check, I guess. Yes, I do still want to go for foreign exchange, though the still-extremely-conservative and rigid social system will not agree with me in the slightest. If I can piss people off in America, I can sure as hell do it in Japan.
Look, guys, classmates and friends (class of '06, bitches), the vast majority of you are of age to vote now (we’re all grown up now), and have US citizenship, and to the extent of my knowledge I don’t know any convicted felons. That's all you need. Let's do this. I spent eighteen years (I guess nineteen, really? I didn't turn eighteen in time last year to vote) waiting to be able to take a stand on this issue. Did anybody else have an issue he or she waited to be able to stand for? Much as many of us may be going through that we-hate-America-and-we're-moving-to-Europe / Canada / Mars wherever phase (youknowwhat, if the country really ever does become as Orwellian as predicted in arthouse documentaries, convince me to stay, just try, even though I only have residency/citizenship/whatever here, and there will probably be a flood of desperate Americans trying to leave, I. Am. So. Screwed. Well, I would stay to help my family and friends.), this is the best tool we have to fix what we hate about our country, whatever those things may be, even if you know I disagree with them. (I have many conservative friends, and I love them as well.) It's more effective than picketing. And slightly less effective than a coup (because yah martial law would fix everything, definitely; let's put that one on the backburner until the goings get more desperate). But it's something. Love America, hate the government. At least love it enough to try to fix where it went wrong. Who am I kidding, anyway. Every American thinks America is going to hell for one reason or another. It's a very American mentality.
On an unrelated note, the MU cafeteria actually had catsup during the rush hour. Unprecedented.
It is pretty cut-and-dry. IT WILL AMEND THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN "ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN". NO LEGAL STATUS SIMILAR TO MARRIAGE WILL BE AWARDED TO ANY 'UNMARRIED' COUPLES. I KNOW HOW MY FRIENDS LIST FEELS ABOUT THIS ISSUE. THIS IS IN ALL CAPS SO EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE TIME TO READ THE WHOLE POST, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE ABSOLUTE MANDATE BEING PASSED WITH SOME MORE VAGUE ISSUES. It will also deny domestic partner benefits to unmarried couples (living together, seniors, etc), and take away their right to file a domestic violence report (not to say that other forms of violence reports cannot be filed, because assault is assault, but we’re entering Picking Semantics Territory, which is a public opinion-swaying tool). The gay marriage ruling is Draconian and sickening--a far-too absolute ruling tucked in with some rather more complicated tax-and-semantic rulings. It is a thoroughly right-wing (I'm independent; both wings suck to me), conservatively-driven, paranoid measure. We are a divided state, though mostly conservative; this isn't Texas or Massachusetts. Every vote matters. It would be super if the entire country could catch up with Canada and the United Kingdom and France and Spain and Belgium and The Netherlands and Germany and New Zealand and look at the European map; just look, but that is on another scale altogether (the Constitutional Amendment for the country). Let's at least do what we can in Arizona November 7, then tackle the big dogs. For all its faults, this is my country and my home, and it pains me to see such opposition to such basic rights being awarded to all Americans.
And another thing, STOP CALLING IT "PROTECT MARRIAGE ARIZONA". What does marriage need protection from? Extending its realm? It's an exclusive club? If you feel as though your marriage would be devalued if the fags and lezbos were allowed to collect health insurance for their significant others, make decisions in times of illness, etc, you are pathetic, and I pity you. Same if you think that marriage would be devalued if people were not allowed to report domestic violence unless it occurred in wedlock (again, assault is assault and can always be reported, but this is entering semantic nit-picking territory). Would you really be so bothered if Adam and Steve (or Eve and... I dunno, Jill?) were getting married, even if they have absolutely no relation to you? Would it really make your marriage any less loving and strong and validated? So what if you think Adam and Steve and Eve and Jill are going to hell. Let them. Just think of it as another of God's great tests; the temptation to follow That Gay Lifestyle is there because The Corrupt Liberal Government allows it, and only the truly strong will withstand that temptation, marry somebody with an opposite package of parts between their legs, and get to go to Heaven. Heaven will be less crowded, surely. Especially since people will not be involved in homosexual relationships unless they can attain a civil union.
Give me one example of how awarding marriages (or even civil unions, which are not as good under law) to homosexual couples would adversely effect society that does not involve society merely drifting further from conservative structures. Sure, it may be the end of the world to some, but not to all of us. Give me one reason other than that drift, in-of-itself, that is not complete bullshit. Don't give me anything about "security" and "stability" and "compatibility" and "taxes" and "cost"; I've read all of the arguments online tenfold times over. I want to hear something new I can't shoot down in two sentences or less. (Some I read, I must admit, were at least thought through, but I still ultimately cannot find reason to deny these rights any longer. Inconvenience? Hassle? So what. It was an inconvenience and a hassle to change the structure so that women could vote. So that slaves could be freed (Remember what happened to the Southern economy after that? Little bit inconvenient, I'd say.).)
If the definition of marriage to you includes "one man, one woman", super, but THAT IS NOT THE EXTENT OF THE DEFINITION TO EVERYBODY. NOT EVEN ALL HETEROSEXUALS. MANY OF THEM DEFINE MARRIAGE BY "LOVE" AND "COMPANIONSHIP" AND "FAMILY", EVEN IF FOR THEM, AS FOR HOMOSEXUALS, LOVE DOES KNOW A GENDER. There is so much more to marriage than what's between your legs. There is a universal love all of us share in our relationships, regardless of whether or not we're straight, swish, or double-gaters. It's what you feel when you hear your loved one laugh, or share an inside joke. Or something like that. And if you don't realize that, have a nice life, but don't impose your values on the rest of the state.
You know, if you really want to define the English word "marriage" as "the union between one man, one woman", that's swell, but what do we call that relationship people have when they commit to spend the rest of their lives together, for better or worse, till death do they part (theoretically, yes I know the divorce rate)? Let's call it a makromak. Or something. So not all makromaks are marriages, but all marriages are makromaks. It's just a specification. Realistically, though, I don't think that will fly if I present it to the Arizona legislature, so let's focus back on the idea that "marriage" has all of its socially-embedded connotations.
And, by the way, insofar as a relationship is only validated if it is in wedlock--yes, you don't start really, validlyloving somebody until you're married to them, true that, and while we're at it, let's keep women from being able to report "domestic violence" from their boyfriends, etc, even when they have children in the house with them. It's semantic, but let's remember the power of language, all things considered, even if We Intellectuals realize it is arbitrary (remember Newspeak). Not every voter and activist is an intellectual, and semantics do effect how the masses vote and react to issues. Let's keep single mothers from being able to collect employment benefits (yes, I realize it gets financially sticky to award benefits to a possibly transcient boyfriend, but let's pick all of this out on a separate bill, not have it ride on the back of NO GAY MARRAIGE OMG). Let's. What the hell. Do you honestly think you're going to discourage people from screwing around out of wedlock, analogous to the bullshit "let's prohibit giving contraceptives to unmarried couples" idea (yes, I know that is extreme and I'm not afraid of that happening anytime soon)? Is it so worth it, so sinful, that you must go to such lengths? My views have already been outlined on this attitude in general.
On the opposite side of things: I am still shocked and dismayed at Japan. If you think America is stagnated in conservative values, their constitution already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Don't let Utena and Subaru and Seishirou fool you. We do have it good in comparison. That it no way, shape, or form makes the denial of same-sex unions right in our own country, but it is a perspective check, I guess. Yes, I do still want to go for foreign exchange, though the still-extremely-conservative and rigid social system will not agree with me in the slightest. If I can piss people off in America, I can sure as hell do it in Japan.
Look, guys, classmates and friends (class of '06, bitches), the vast majority of you are of age to vote now (we’re all grown up now), and have US citizenship, and to the extent of my knowledge I don’t know any convicted felons. That's all you need. Let's do this. I spent eighteen years (I guess nineteen, really? I didn't turn eighteen in time last year to vote) waiting to be able to take a stand on this issue. Did anybody else have an issue he or she waited to be able to stand for? Much as many of us may be going through that we-hate-America-and-we're-moving-to-Europe / Canada / Mars wherever phase (youknowwhat, if the country really ever does become as Orwellian as predicted in arthouse documentaries, convince me to stay, just try, even though I only have residency/citizenship/whatever here, and there will probably be a flood of desperate Americans trying to leave, I. Am. So. Screwed. Well, I would stay to help my family and friends.), this is the best tool we have to fix what we hate about our country, whatever those things may be, even if you know I disagree with them. (I have many conservative friends, and I love them as well.) It's more effective than picketing. And slightly less effective than a coup (because yah martial law would fix everything, definitely; let's put that one on the backburner until the goings get more desperate). But it's something. Love America, hate the government. At least love it enough to try to fix where it went wrong. Who am I kidding, anyway. Every American thinks America is going to hell for one reason or another. It's a very American mentality.
On an unrelated note, the MU cafeteria actually had catsup during the rush hour. Unprecedented.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 01:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 06:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 02:02 am (UTC)I'd already been thinking about voting, but this clinches it. I'm going and I'm voting this motherfucker down.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 06:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 03:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 07:08 am (UTC)Of course you did. You're the monkey.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 06:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 06:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 03:35 am (UTC)i stuck them all over people at school who are old farts and told them to vote no.
hopefully more people will vote no on prop 107
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 06:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 04:08 am (UTC)I would comment on your rant, possibly do some devil's advocate stuff, but then I'd have to do that with other rants, and Dreamburnt alone would be too much for that. Needless to say, I agree. (The thing about Japan is new to me, though - it makes sense, though. I wonder if it will stay that way when the current youth generation matures, though? I should ask my girlfriend about it - she's an exchange student there for this year, more or less.)
Lastly, ketchup--and that's how it is spelled, thankyouverymuch--is one of the reasons I try to avoid Pitchforks at rush hour(or after, actually). At least the lack of forks was fixed(without which, the name is Pitch...).
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 06:09 pm (UTC)And, wow, talk about a long-distance relationship--I admire that you have the fortitude to stay with her through that. It must be hard.
I was hungry; usually I do too.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 08:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 06:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 07:16 pm (UTC)One time I was defending same-sex marriage and somebody asked me if I was actually straight with a disgusted look on their face. I said yes and then asked them if it was such an unusual and horrible idea for somebody to stand up for the rights of others. I wave a flag for true love! =)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 08:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-12 12:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-12 05:01 am (UTC)