Log in

No account? Create an account
current entries friends' entries archives about me Previous Previous Next Next
Mardigras and Links - cellophane — LiveJournal
the story of an invisible girl
Mardigras and Links
Happy Mardigras everybody! Have some beads, some king cake, and a paczki or two. Mine was apple-filled, with cinnamon, although I mostly only ate the middle.

I really liked this article, which is an entertaining solution to the whole gay marriage issue.

Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up" ... Others held signs that read, "On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."

To be honest, all of the fuss confuses me. With people dying every day of hunger and exposure, with children shooting other children, with war, and poverty, and illiteracy, and teenage pregnancy, and hundreds of other vital issues to worry about, why is the government getting so uptight about who can marry who? I think it's a beautiful thing, an extraordinarily lucky thing, if a person has found another person they want to spend the rest of their life with. No matter what gender either may be. So let them marry, and use your time and money funding inner-city schools or doing something else useful instead.

While I'm linking links, here is one that made me smile. I hope sherdeb in particular will get a kick out of it, if she hasn't seen it before.
read 14 comments | talk to me!
abrokenstarr From: abrokenstarr Date: February 24th, 2004 03:04 pm (UTC) (Link)
The whole gay marriage issue is an interesting one. I agree with you, anyone should be allowed to get married. I'm not sure necessarily whether it should be 'in the eyes of God' however though, as it clearly goes against Christianity.

There are often legal issues with the unions too, the couples want to be able to support their partners. Financial security in a legal union can be very important. For example, if one partner dies unexpectedly, with no will, the partner has no claim. Everything will go to the family, almost without fail. I don't think that this is fair.

I don't understand why Bush has brought this up. I expected many people to spring up arguing with his speech. It seems that he has quite a lot of support. That surprised me greatly.

Sorry... ramble-alert... I'm not even sure if I got my points across properly.
infernus1218 From: infernus1218 Date: February 24th, 2004 03:15 pm (UTC) (Link)
Most gay couples resort to forming corporations... and living within that union.

Not sure of all of the legal aspects, but I am sure that it's not as romantic as getting married.
From: nicegeek Date: February 24th, 2004 08:35 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm not sure necessarily whether it should be 'in the eyes of God' however though, as it clearly goes against Christianity.

I think that statement illustrates the issue quite well. The problem is that marriage originated as a religious institution, dating back to the days when governments (usually a king) were extensions of the church, and ruled by 'divine right'. Back then, it seemed an obvious choice for those governments to recognize marriages and grant them special privileges.

Then this whole concept of the "separation of church and state" came around. We in America put it in our Constitution. However, the state continued to recognize marriages, despite their religious nature. What's happening now is that we're finally being forced to confront this contradiction. Many conservatives, including President Bush, want to have it both ways; they want to use religious criteria to define marriage, but still want the government to recognize it. The courts, to their credit, are refusing to allow it.

The solution, IMHO, is for the government to stop recognizing marriages completely, and instead only recognize "civil unions". Religious couples would then typically have both a civil union (a purely legal formality), and a marriage (which would be a religious ceremony). Atheists, homosexuals, or others who don't have a church willing to bless them, would skip the second part, but would still enjoy all of the legal rights that any other couple would have.

According to a friend of mine, this is how it's done in the Netherlands, and it completely avoids the whole disagreement about who can/cannot get married.
encorecrazay From: encorecrazay Date: February 24th, 2004 04:14 pm (UTC) (Link)
First, I really liked the link on coffee sizes, second a little Texas history, 30 years ago, marriage was defined as between a man and woman (well ahead of the current call for changes), then last year, they modified to NOT recognize civil unions between the same sexes that were allowed in other states.
jeffreyab From: jeffreyab Date: February 24th, 2004 04:52 pm (UTC) (Link)
For my thoughts on this see my post.

A brief summary is that marriage must be open to all couples because there are too many rights, privileges and laws that are tied to being married that are denied you if you are not married.

I still believe churches have the individual right not to marry homosexuals if they do not want to but everyone should have the right to marry and form a family.

I like that icon too.
From: xxbr0kenheartxx Date: February 24th, 2004 05:10 pm (UTC) (Link)
that thing is


<3 for funny things

you are by far the coolest adult EVER
renniekins From: renniekins Date: February 24th, 2004 09:41 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yay! Which link are you referring to? (or did you like both?)

*blush* why thank you!!
From: xxbr0kenheartxx Date: February 25th, 2004 12:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
i only saw the starbucks one
renniekins From: renniekins Date: February 25th, 2004 02:07 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yay! That's such a funny one. Especially 'cause I have a friend who works there, so I go often.
From: xxbr0kenheartxx Date: February 25th, 2004 05:26 pm (UTC) (Link)
yummmm frappachinos <3
sherdeb From: sherdeb Date: February 24th, 2004 08:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yay!! Hahaha! That link was actually posted in the baristas community about a month ago. I found it highly entertaining.
Related to this and the rest of your post, Starbucks actually allows medical benefits to "domestic partners," which I feel is very cool and socially ahead of the game...
I agree with you: love is love and if you are lucky enough to find it with anyone, you should be allowed to marry!
renniekins From: renniekins Date: February 24th, 2004 09:43 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm not surprised you've already seen it. It definitely made me laugh.

Really, that's very cool! How do they define "domestic partners"? That would probably be the hard part about such a policy. For example, does your sweetie count?

Yeah - love is hard enough to find as it is!
figure_skater From: figure_skater Date: February 25th, 2004 05:23 pm (UTC) (Link)
That Starbucks thing was soo funny! I checked out the other videos on that site and they are hilarious as well! Thanks for making me laugh. :)
renniekins From: renniekins Date: February 26th, 2004 07:47 am (UTC) (Link)
Made me laugh too....glad you liked it!
read 14 comments | talk to me!