Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
heroes red umbrella
Moving my internal clock to a first shift schedule has not been that bad so far.  I am now very grateful for the end of DSL, right now it is light out when I have to wake up which helps a lot.
I had forgotten how tiring it is to be on my feet for eight hours a day.  I am sore every evening.  I can't tell yet if I should think about getting new shoes (or you know, new feet) or if I'll be fine once my body finishes adjusting.
There is something hugely satisfying about working with my hands.  Today we rearranged 16 or so pallets of boxes of books, alphabatizing the stock so that when the rush hits everything will be easier to find.  It took us just under three hours, and some of the boxes are hugely heavy.  But this is exactly right for my current mood - tasks that have a right way to do them, that take physical effort, and that show physical results when we're done.  In a month or so I'm sure I'll be desperate to sit at a desk in front of a computer again but right now the warehouse is exactly where I should be.
Gas has dropped to below $3 a gallon at my neighborhood stations.  I thought they had thrown out all of the big twos after we hit $4.50 this summer. 
As I'm sure you've heard, prop 8 passed in California.  I think there's only one thing to do.  Create a new propostion to be on the next statewide election ballot that will ban marriage in the state of California.  Sadly I don't have the political or legal know-how to make this happen, and of course it wouldn't pass.  But I'm damn sure there would be enough signatures to get it on the ballot.  And it would make for some very interesting discussions.
These numbers do give me hope.  In  2000 when the last prop banning same-sex marriage was on the ballot it passed with 61% of the vote.  Prop 8 passed with 52% of the vote.  Not that waiting is ideal, but time is turning the tide.  And a constitution amended can be amended again. 
The LJ Idol topic this week is hope.  I had nothing until last night when I finally had an idea.  But it is very strange.
The founder of Klutz bought us all lunch today in celebration.  Heh, no partisanship there.
J is away until Sunday night, helping his sister move states after her divorce.  I am grateful that I am dating a man who will be there for his family, even if selfishly I'm going to miss him.

  • 1
It's not selfish to miss J. It would be selfish to think he shouldn't go, which you don't.

re Prop anti-8: I've been against civil marriage for a long time. I'll probably do it if I decide it's beneficial, but that doesn't make it right.

Obviously, without civil marriage, we wouldn't have all this confusion about the difference between marriage and Mawwiage and this idea that religious opinions should be law in a nominally secular system. But it goes beyond the gay thing. The more I think about it, the less I think that the social functions of civil marriage should be tied to sex. There are all manner of platonic domestic partnerships where marriage would be inappropriate or even illegal, and without the shortcut of civil marriage for the majority, one of two things would happen: either a set of similar constructs would appear in law for arbitrary partnerships, or a legal subspecialty would emerge for writing partnership contracts. (That doesn't sound good, but where there's a legal subspecialty, there's a boilerplate contract industry.) It could complicate employer-subsidized insurance benefits, but I'm more interested in legal protections here: Shouldn't a committed lifelong pair of maiden aunts be able to grant each other incontrovertible rights to medical decision-making and default inheritance? Stuff like that. Hateful fundies like nice old ladies, don't they?

Also -- I don't say this often because it should freak the family values people out even more than gaiety -- if there was no one-size-fits-all civil marriage, contracts could be made for polygamous, polyamorous, and open relationships. In the first two cases, people could potentially find their own solutions to the insurance and inheritance issues that have been used as reasons such marriages should be illegal. As for the latter, in some states, adultery is illegal. Which means that if one half of an open marriage decides they don't like the terms anymore, they're automatically right. That's ridiculous.

The passage of Prop 8 may not be reflective of the actual California electorate -- lots of non-voters came out for this election, and I doubt you get hooked on voting after just one experience. So I'll hold out hope for a couple of years that California will undo this stupid law by leading the way away from civil marriage. Of course, just undoing the stupid law period would be okay.

I hadn't thought of a few of these points, but agree with all of them. I think that marriage is in the end primarily a religious and personal notion, and folks are welcome to it, but it is time to get it out of the state. If we have to change the name to satisfy the crazies who believe marriage requires one penis and one vagina then fine - but getting 'married' shouldn't be a legal act.

This has come up for me because J doesn't really believe in marriage (and is 98% certain he won't ever want to be married). This is tough because I grew up expecting to be married someday, and still would like that. But I'm realizing that the piece of paper only has the emotional meaning you give it or don't, and the real value of it is all the legal things that are automatically true once you're married. There has to be a way of declaring a partnership that still gets people those legal things - and ideally one that is relatively easy and one-stop as opposed to now.

I think it is time for marriage to evolve into something new, that can take into account everything we throw at it.

  • 1