27 November 2007

The Privatization of Marriage

This New York Times article said pretty much all the things I have been saying since I first became aware of the gay marriage "issue" (whenever it was Hawaii sparked it those many years ago). In case however you haven't read the article, let me summarize:

* Way back when (1215 and before) Christianity defined the validity of marriage as NOT ONLY those people who had married in the church, but also those who said they had exchanged vows (even if it had been on a hay stack). Those marriages not performed in a church (aka illicit marriages) were still accepted and those people were granted THE SAME rights, privileges, and responsibilities as those who married in the church.

* "Not until the [16TH CENTURY] did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match (NY Times)." Poor Romeo and Juliet...

* "The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was [SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE] of a valid marriage (NY Times)." Back then, living together before marriage didn't have the same (possible) negative repercussions as they do now.

* "In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners (NY Times)."

The question then becomes, what was the purpose of having one's marriage validated by the STATE?

* Distribution of survivor benefits
* Provision of health insurance and pension benefits
* Inheritance and medical information sharing

The article goes more into how these (and other) reasons for validating ones marriage with the state was reasonable in say the 1950s (when divorce, single mothers, and teen parents were rare), but what I want to focus on is the three "rights" I listed above. Rights granted only to those whose marriage is recognized by the state. I know this is probably a topic beaten to death. The arguments are probably used to death. And you are probably sick to death of hearing and reading about the Gay Marriage "Issue." If you are, tough. It's my blog. If you don't want to read it, don't. No skin off my nose.

But for those of you who continue...yay :-).

I was listening to NPR a few months ago (when it was still warm), and they did a segment on this woman (a mechanic) who had been involved with another woman (police officer for over 20 years) for over 15 years. NOTE: Because I don't recall their names, I shall have to refer to them by their professions. The unfortunate thing about their marriage (if they, if anyone, can stand someone else that long, their relationship deserves to be called a marriage) is that it was cut short. The police woman died of throat cancer. Her partner stayed with her, cared for her, worked all day, stayed up all night, fed her, bathed her, took her to hospital appointments, and when it was time, was with her when she died. They had built a house together, but it was the officers money that really made that home, and all creature comforts possible. I'm not saying she was a "sugar-momma," hell no. But her job paid better than her partners. What was so upsetting about this was that, because their relationship was not VALIDATED or RECOGNIZED by the state, her pension could not be passed on to her partner. Up to her dying day she fought the state where they lived, participated in county meetings, petitioned her elected officials, and even allowed a documentary to be made of their trials - both legal and medical.

Honestly, I don't recall the outcome. I think it was positive. But what of those who situations don't turn out as well or remotely close? The mechanic wouldn't have been able to keep the house she and her partner built on her income. Mortgages, loans, bills, etc. are things couples take care of AS A COUPLE. To suddenly find yourself saddled with creditors alone and strapped for cash... "A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor’s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn’t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner’s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments (NY Times)."

I'm sure those of you who have taken a detailed look at my profile maybe wondering, what is a self-professed devout Orthodox Christian who calls herself a LUPO doing supporting gay marriage? My answer is this: although I do not want this for myself (okay, I'm lying, I do. But I also have this unholy fear of damnation. That kind of out weights my fear of dying alone and lonely), that doesn't mean I can't look beyond myself and my faith to see what is fair and just for others. And just to be clear on something: no, my faith does not sanction non-heterosexual marriages. They do not persecute the individual (I should know), but instead take a very compassionate view/stance/and action. I know, only my word on this matter. What I am getting at is basic fairness. If one group is allowed a privilege and must take the responsibilities for that privilege, all should be able to have that privilege and take on the responsibilities that comes with it. When group A is granted things group B isn't, it isn't only group B that suffers, but those attached to group B - the children, families, friends, etc.

Okay. Enough ranting for now. It's taken most of my time at work to write this. I should do something for work now... :-)

23 November 2007

The Pervasiveness of Portable Music Players


The other day I was walking to work from the bus station where I get off. It's about a ten minute walk. Along the way, I pass several hotels, eateries, shops, the Trax line stations (what the rest of the world calls metro or subway stations), etc. City stuff. Before it got cold, you would see business types, college students, the homeless (you always see them), mom's, dad's, kids, and teens skipping class. It was nice to walk along, seeing the sights, smiling at strangers and gazing in windows. Smelling fresh pizza or steaming curry or a multitude of other hot dishes as you strolled in front of shops was always a treat o the nose.

But lately I've noticed a change. I walk down those same streets, and no one smiles at one another. People at the Trax stations are quiet, except for the person with a cell phone glued to their ear (I admit, sometimes that person is me). People in check out stands are distant and unresponsive to the checkout clerks. Children follow their parents listlessly, college students clutch their backpacks and stare blankly ahead, the business types are no longer glancing up from a hand-full of papers to smile. Instead they stride through the streets oblivious to every one around them.

People these days are perpetually preoccupied, caught up in their own little world. But it's not stress, it's not overwhelming work loads, bills, family, or even a really bad case of the blues. It's portable music devices. (Note: Because I'm pretty much only familiar with i-pods, they are going to be the only brand named. They are by far not the only ones.)

They are every where, pervading every aspect of our lives. Driving to the store? Listen to your i-pod. Paying the clerk for your groceries or gas? Listen to your i-pod. Sitting at your desk, in the office, surrounded by your coworkers? Listen to your i-pod! What ever you do, where ever you go, plug-in, tune-out, listen to your i-pod. Really, that should be the slogan for these things.

My problem isn't with the devices themselves. When I was in college I loved having mine. I could go to the library and read, using mine to tune out the distracting background noise while at the same time, keeping me awake. It was nice to tune out my various room mates (and their God-forsaken TVs). Now that I am home, I find the place I wish to use my i-pod the most is on the bus commute to and from work (while I enjoy being around people, that doesn't mean I want to listen to conversations in Spanish, one-sided arguments with boyfriends, or the bus-driver making inconsequential conversation with whomever happens to sit near them).

What my problem is, is how these devices are used. I have seem people use them as they drive, which I find this very disturbing. Yes, turning up the car stereo can drown out the sounds around you, but not nearly as much (or effectively) as head-phones plugged directly into your ears. Those head-phones drown out the guy yelling at you as you drive into the cross walk in front of him, the fire or ambulance sirens coming from a block away, the beeping as you switch lanes, and more. The pedestrian whose attention is focused on the music pouring into his head isn't paying attention to the driver who is speeding up to the crosswalk the woman trying to make the turn in front of you. And I can't begin to explain how rude I find it when someone comes up to you to pay for something and refuses to unplug for that brief moment. I have seen librarians, checkout clerks, and restaurant servers ignored, their friends (though sometimes required) greeting - "Hi, how are you today" - or offer of assistance gone unanswered. All because that someone is plugged in, oblivious to the world around them.

And I say all this from experience. I have been that person in the car, trying to get over, signaling for what seems like ages, only to have the car right on my back bumper ignore me. And when they pass me, and I look over to glare, they are plugged in, oblivious. I have been at the street corner, seeing by the timer that I don't have time to cross, only to watch the business person stride into the street, belatedly realizing they shouldn't cross (I've also been the driver freaked out because I think they are going to cross in front of my oncoming car). I've been the desk jockey, trying to ask the person in front of me if they need any help, only to be ignored because they can't hear me. I've been the person sitting with a client trying to explain something to someone with head-phones securely in place, wondering if they could really hear me, or if they were even listening to me.


I find it rude. I find it obtrusive. I find it annoying. But most of all, I find it disheartening. What happened to simple human interaction? When did our music become more important than smiling at the door man guarding the hotel, or the woman in the seat next to us on the train, or the bus driver who says hello? When did our music become more important than saying thank you and have a nice day to the clerk or server who took care of us? When did our music become more important than being aware of the world around us and those sharing our moment of existence?

When did our music become more important than other people?

09 November 2007

First Blog

Well, I suppose that technically this isn't my first blog. When I had a MySpace account I practically lived there, blogging about my life, friends, and crazy fucked up romantic run-ins as if people really cared. But then I realized that all I was doing was substituting my real, leather bound, red, engraved journal that I paid good money for...for some online forum in which only my friends could comment on my life. As if their comments gave me some vindication for the actions I made (or didn't). So I moved on to bigger and better things. Like Warbook on Facebook. And now, this blog. A real blog. Guess we'll see how it goes. :-)