Marriage Week: Bliss

As Marriage Week continues, I look back at June of 2011, watching the New York Senate vote. And butcher a Billy Joel song.

(I have the New York Senate live stream up on another window, and this song insinuated itself on my brain. I’m posting it before the vote–NY, you’d better do the right thing, or this post won’t make any sense!)

Some folks want the right to bake
Just a wedding cake for a wedding night
Groom and groom standing side by side
Or a bride and bride
As they wait for the notice
And their newly wedded kiss
I’m in a New York state of bliss

I’ve seen all of the politics
Of the little tricks and the grand debate
Been watching the senate in the Empire state
Had my own expectations
But I never hoped for this
I’m in a New York state of bliss

It was so different, living day by day
Out of luck, and the bigots bring the blues
But now I see a little give and take
In The New York Times, The Daily News

It comes down to reality
And it’s fine with me, ‘cause it’s simply right
Now the votes are in; it begins tonight
There’s a remnant of history
I am never going to miss
I’m in a New York state of bliss

It was so different, living day by day
Out of luck, and the bigots bring the blues
But now I see a little give and take
In The New York Times, The Daily News

It comes down to reality
And it’s fine with me, ‘cause it’s simply right
Now the votes are in; it begins tonight
There’s a remnant of history
I am never going to miss
I’m in a New York state of bliss

I’m just watching the live stream
And I’m waiting for the kiss
I’m in a New York state of bliss

(With apologies to Billy Joel.)

Flat Earth Thinking, At The Supreme Cart

The Supreme Cartographer, known perhaps
As the final word in the world of maps,
Was told that science had recently found
(To his great surprise) that the world was round.
That as accurate as his maps might appear
He’d improve them at once by assuming a sphere
The idea was new, but the data were strong
And in hindsight it should have been clear all along
It may be unsettling, different, or strange,
But the world is a sphere, and the graphics must change

The Cartographer, though, had (it seemed, since his birth)
Been consistently drawing a pancake-flat earth
These round-planet notions were modern and bold
And the data, while solid, were not very old
“Supposing I change” he surmised, with a cough,
“And a ship finds the edge of the world and falls off?”
His world had been flat now, for thousands of years,
Doing fine, till this radical notion appears.
“The data are strong, but tradition is stronger…
Let’s keep the world flat for a little bit longer.”

Inspired by Justice Alito:

The one thing that the parties in this case seem to agree on is that marriage is very important. It’s thought to be a fundamental building block of society and its preservation essential for the preservation of society. Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn’t a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a — a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe.

But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we — we are not — we do not have the ability to see the future.

People I Know

Where to begin? In no particular order…

D. D is a conservative republican heterosexual woman. She’s been married twice; divorced, then widowed. She’s on the market. Actively. Has never wanted children (in part, this led to the end of marriage #1), but very much likes being married.

M & K. The brother of a friend of mine, and his (male) partner. Not married (their state does not allow it), just together for 27 years so far. They adopted 2 kids—AIDS babies nobody else wanted—and loved them their entire lives, and mourned their inevitable deaths. Among the best people I know.

V & P. I love these people. A heterosexual married couple, they never had their own biological kids—I don’t know if this was by choice or not, and it’s none of my business. They adopted 3 kids from halfway across the world, and received anonymous threats because their children had darker skin than they did. Their kids grew up to be wonderful adults; I just ran into their youngest a little bit ago (she was in my daycare when first in the US) and I was delighted to see what a wonderful adult she had become.

V & H. Different V, of course. These were my neighbors, quite possibly the best neighbors in the history of neighbors. Two women, one son. He’s now engaged (to a woman, not that it matters), and a wonderful man; for a time, he was my son’s best friend (despite being a year older and in a different class in school). V & H (I can say this, since I am not really identifying them) each wanted to marry the other, but had to move to another state (for job reasons) before either of them popped the question. As of today, they are not married, but they have raised a fine son who is about to be.

S & V. Another different V—it seems I know a lot of V’s. Two adopted kids (from Korea), one biological. A wonderful family.

V & H. completely different from the V & H above. V was divorced, with 3 kids; H proposed to him while she was pregnant with his 4th.

B & J. my uncle and aunt. He was a pastor. Three kids (my cousins), then he left her for his true love, a catholic priest.

H & M. Cuttlespouse’s uncle and aunt. Again, a pastor. Again, three kids. Stayed with the marriage; abused the kids. They don’t speak to him any more.

C & C. And K & Y. And D & D. and C & L. Heterosexuals, married, with kids. Three out of four of them are in favor of same-sex marriage. The other couple have religious reasons to oppose.

I could go on. Easily.

Relationships are more than a spectrum; they are a spectrum of spectra, along multiple orthogonal variables. Variability is the only constant; there are exceptions to every rule. Heterosexuals, and homosexuals, adopt. And have surrogates, or IVF. Or choose not to have kids at all. If you want to protect children through the institution of marriage, don’t look at who is getting married; look at what people do. There are bad parents of every stripe; there are good parents of every stripe.

In my opinion, there are two paths here. You can start with the constitution, and try to justify unequal treatment under the law… and fail. Or you can start with the evidence, trying to show systematically better parenting among heterosexuals than homosexuals… and fail.

Ok, there is a third path. You can recognize reality. But, really, who expects the courts to take that path?

Marriage Week: Equality Stops At The Border

I’ve been following, as best as an ignorant mollusk can, the analysis of the recent decisions by the Supreme Court to take on a couple of cases on same-sex marriage. What I can’t wrap my head around, though, is that there appears to be a very real chance that same-sex marriage will be the law of the land… only in part of the land.

I just can’t see it happening. It’s just too… “a house divided against itself” springs to mind. So an encore, today, just because of the last line. I wrote this when New York passed SSM (which made me happy, cos I was married in NY). [Read more…]

Marriage Week: Larry And Robert

Larry and Robert are married.
They live in a house on our street.
They’re wonderfully helpful as neighbors,
And as nice as you’re likely to meet.

Their son is a friend of our daughter’s
Their daughter, a friend of our son’s;
If you’re looking for light conversation,
Or for helpful advice, they’re the ones. (continues, after the jump:) [Read more…]

Marriage Week: No Disrespect…

In honor of the SCOTUS taking up the issue of same-sex marriage, I am posting some of my previous verses–some in celebration, others to highlight why change is needed. Oh, and it’s “Marriage Week”, not “Same-Sex Marriage Week”, because I looked at my Cuttlefish University benefits package, and throughout it, benefits are offered to “spouse or same-sex spouse”… and I thought, this is either redundant or separate-but-equal (thus, unequal). It’s just “marriage”. I’m sure the guests will figure out from context whether it’s same-sex or not, but the process is the same, and the vocabulary does not need an additional adjective.

First up, from 2011…

Our daughter’s getting married!
What a joyous, joyous day!
But we’re going to skip the wedding,
Cos you see, our daughter’s gay.

We love her more than life itself
And love her wife-to-be;
We’d never be judgmental, but
We simply can’t agree!

I mean no disrespect, of course,
I love her to the core—
It’s just that, when it comes to this,
I love religion more.

comments, after the jump:
[Read more…]

A Thousand Words: Beautiful Couple

A picture is worth a thousand words, or so I hear. This beautiful couple showed up in a local stream, in a pond just upstream of an old mill building.
Hooded Merganser pair

It’s early spring (duh), and these gorgeous Hooded Mergansers are on their way north. For the time being, they are showing up wherever there is open water. I have shots from four different nearby locations in three days, from a tidal bay to a roadside stream. (click to embiggen, of course)
Male

Female
Isn’t this a beautiful world?

I’ll Take You At Your Word

You tell me you’re a Christian
And I’ll take you at your word
Though you’re quick to note, the bible
Has some bits that are absurd.

In your eyes, it’s not a science book;
No reason to believe
That there ever was an Eden
With an Adam and an Eve

And the flood is just mythology
Not literally true,
(the majority of Christians,
As you know, agree with you!)

And there isn’t any evidence
For Heaven or for Hell
Or an afterlife of any sort,
But hey, it’s just as well.

You don’t really think that Jesus
Turned some water into wine;
And you couldn’t care the slightest
If He really was divine.

If the miracles are hogwash
And the resurrection hype—
If your Christ is just a mortal man—
The magic all is tripe…

Is “Christian” just a label, then?
Is “Christian” just your tribe?
To which beliefs—if any—
Do you Christian folk subscribe?

If your faith makes you a Christian
But you tend to disagree
With the others of your label—
It’s confusing, don’t you see?

You tell me you’re a Christian
And I’ll take you at your word…
But the label you have chosen
Is, I’m telling you… absurd.

Yeah, so anyway… I know full well that most Christians aren’t young-earth creationists. I don’t actually know any young-earth creationists personally. I know a lot of liberal Christians; some of them are related to me (I do know one or two old-earth creationists who are also related to me). My parents, for instance, are Christians, but know full well the history of the writing of the bible, and are (as former science teachers) perfectly accepting of the evidence for evolution. They don’t even argue for the divinity of Christ; I honestly don’t know whether they believe in that or not (and yes, it comes up in conversation, as all of their siblings are very religious).

The truth is, not only are “theists” as varied in their beliefs as atheists, but frankly, any segment of believers–any small portion of the theistic spectrum–are themselves a spectrum (or, more probably, many spectra across many orthogonal factors). People are people, and they vary. It makes perfect sense that no two atheist need share the same beliefs–after all, atheism is negatively defined–but it should not surprise us that any two believers, even of the same sect, need not share the same beliefs. As important as religion is, it is not 100% of anyone’s belief system. Not to mention… the members of any one specific (no matter how specific) belief system do (and must!) differ from one another in the particulars of their belief.

So it should not surprise me at all, but of course there are Christians (I could say “self-described Christians”, but frankly that’s an insult) who don’t believe in Eden, in Adam and Eve. Who don’t believe in original sin (except as a metaphor). Who believe Jesus’s sacrifice was meaningless, if it happened at all. Who don’t believe in the divinity of Christ, in Heaven, in Hell, in sin or redemption. Who laugh at the notion of transubstantiation (this includes some Catholics). And yet, who are Christians, every bit as much as any other group can claim the name (I’m looking at you, Westboro Baptist Church).

Which, frankly, doesn’t surprise or bother me (like I said, I see it in my own family). But… Why on earth would they want to keep the name? Strange bedfellows, Christianity begets–people who disagree more than agree lay claim to the same name. People who make war with one another over these very beliefs lay claim to the same name. My goodness… I’ve known people who legally changed their names to cut ties to parents they disagreed with. Why would good people like my sister, like my parents…like hundreds of thousands or millions more like them… want to share a label with people who believe things they find ludicrous?

Yeah, I guess they’d rather the other folks change their label. And sometimes they’ll pretend that already happened–that those other people “aren’t real christians”. But the thing is, the whole spectrum claims that label. I’d rather not be caught in a “no true Christian” fallacy, so…

I’ll take them at their word.

Related Posts:
Historical Jesus

On Original Sin

The Thin Veneer Of Civilization Peels Away

It looks just like civility
In towns both far and near
It looks as firm as solid oak—
It’s false as thin veneer.

They go to church on Sundays
And they bow their heads in prayer
American utopia?
Try peeling back a layer.

“Our boys are always gentlemen!
They like to party, but
They’re members of the football team!
It must have been the slut.”

And no, it’s not just Steubenville,
And no, it’s not just jocks
Just look online, at comment threads
On CNN or FOX.

They gladly make excuses for
This adolescent jape—
And claim they’d call the cops themselves…
If only this were rape.

This wasn’t really rape, they said,
And isn’t worth a fuss…
But, damn… it really isn’t them
I look around… It’s us

Let me start with verse 2–in this particular case, I absolutely do not mean that all the rape apologists are religious. I needed a rhyme for “layer”. My point is not hypocrisy, my point is that I don’t think there has been a news site I have yet checked–right wing, left wing, local, national, whatever–where there hasn’t been an active cluster of rape apologists. CNN. FOX. NPR. MSNBC. Others. On NPR, I took the bait of a troll, and remembered that it is much easier to compose a drive-by trolling post than to properly respond… other commenters warned not to feed the troll, but if no one responded at all, it could be confused with tacit approval of a rape apologist.

And here I am, a doggerel writer. A writer of light, often humorous commentary. Ever try to write lightly about something that turns your stomach? Cos I have. It doesn’t go well.

So, in part because of this stuff, in part because of never you mind, I spent part of last night shivering through an anxiety attack, and the rest of it not sleeping. And I can’t wait to read some good news. If you have any, I’d love to hear it.

And the damnedest thing is, I have absolutely no reason to complain. Here I just phrased much of this post in terms of *my* discomfort, and that is so far removed from the actual real thing that’s wrong that it just makes me look a fool.

I guess the good news is, so far (don’t point me to exceptions, not yet!) whereever I have seen rape apologists on news sites, I have seen people ready, willing, and able to call them on it. And it seems that the apologists have been in the minority–motivated, headstrong, stubborn as mules, and loud, but in the minority. It seems. I certainly hope so.

All that TED talking about de-extinction, and I can think of a species I wouldn’t mind saying goodbye to.

God Is Pro-Choice (Just Anti-Woman)

When God created humankind
And said that they were free
He showed nothing’s more important than a choice.
He could save us from damnation
In a heartbeat, but you see,
It’s important that He’s given us a voice.

If eternity in torture
Is acceptable to God
As the risk you take for freedom while on earth
If the right to choose is sacrosanct,
I guess I find it odd
That the church would fight with women over birth

See, if self-determination
Is the most important fact—
More important than salvation of your soul
Why would women be disfavored
For a self-determined act?
Cos the goal is not salvation—it’s control.

Give me liberty, or give me death

Ελευθερία ή θάνατος (“Freedom or Death”–the national motto of Greece)

Live Free Or Die

Humankind has (as you can see) elevated freedom to an equal (if not greater) status with life itself. If this seems extreme, consider that [some of] Christian theology claims that the threat of eternal damnation is balanced by free will; that, because we have been given the gift of being able to choose to believe, it is acceptable to punish non-believers for all eternity.

Equating freedom with life is, it seems, a less stringent standard than it could be; we could easily make a biblical case for freedom being far more (infinitely more) important than life. The ability of human beings to make free choices is an important part of modern theology; if we did not choose our sinful path–if an omnipotent, omniscient God chose it for us–how could that God justify punishing us at all, let alone eternally? No, it is crucially important that humans have the ability, and the right, to choose.

Human beings. Not women. For some reason, the theology all seems to fall apart when it comes to women being able to freely choose. Not because life is important–if that were the case, God could choose to infringe on the freedoms He grants to all of us. An omnipotent, omniscient being could easily make it such that men would not choose to rape, or that parents would not disown girls, or that birth defects would not happen. An omnipotent, omniscient God could easily make every pregnancy wanted. But of course, He did not. Because human choice is more important.

Unless, of course, a woman chooses for herself. Because even more important than humankind’s ability to choose, is… what? A woman’s inability to choose?

God is clearly pro-choice. But it seems equally clear that God is anti-woman.

I wonder why anyone would be pro-god.