Same Person, Different Rights

I was just reading a post I'd missed on my new favorite blog, Are We Married?, about the fight for equal parenting rights and it led me down a familiar mental path.

See, I'm in a very long-term committed relationship with a man, but I have a few ex-girlfriends in my past and have been truly in love with a woman in my life. I'm also very sensitive about

rights when it comes to the most important decisions a person can make, to marry and to have children. I'm marriagefree and childfree and proud of it. I haven't 100% written marriage out for some time in the future, I'm realistically flexible and can see some practical advantages to the institution, but I am not having kids under any circumstances other than taking in the children of those I care about if there is no other option but them going to strangers. I knew I didn't want to be a mother for certain when I was 3 and have yet to waver as of 33. To be perfectly honest, the thought of having a kid terrifies me more than jumping out of a plane did! Only one thought is scarier -- pregnancy.

My only problem with my decisions is the conversation I have had oh, so frequently with strangers. acquaintances, some family members, and even a few friends:

Them: "So, are you two married?"

Me: "No."

Them: "How long have you been together?"

Me: "About 12 years [or whatever amount it was at that point]."

Them: "Oh! That's a long time! Well, when are you going to get married?"

Me: "I'm not sure, probably never."

Them: "But what about the kids?"

Me: "We're not planning on having any."

And then, depending on religion or age group, they launch into one of several tirades. The most common is just that if I don't have children I will end up regretting it, which is funny because I refuse to regret things, it's such a waste of time and energy. Another regular is that I will lose my boyfriend if I don't give him a family, which is ridiculous as he doesn't want those things either and we ARE a family as it is, we certainly act more like one than many married people. My personal favorite was the guy who told me I should kill myself because I am not fulfilling my function as God's daughter. I am not joking, he was a cabbie who picked me up at JFK and drove me to Manhattan, a very long and strange taxi trip.

I know I could just lie or try to change the subject but why should I have to do that? I much prefer being proud of myself and my choices, even if it can be painful to hear the reactions.

Then I look back at my life and realize that I could be having such a different conversation if I'd settled down with a woman. The very same people who lambaste me for choosing not to marry or have children would be telling me that those are not even an option for me as long as they have their way. That would hurt a lot more. The concept that a decision I made to go out to the bar where I got to know my boyfriend one spring evening years ago could completely change my rights is mind-blowing.

I think about Guadalupe "Lupita" Benitez and how a clinic refused her access to IVF. I think about the droves of right-wing voters who came out for Prop. 8. I think about how people used to complain about gay couples having more disposable income than them because they didn't have children yet they don't want them to spend that money to become parents or support children.

What worries me more than the serious Christian Coalition-types, though, is the amount of generally rational, tolerant, accepting, and loving people I know who are pro-gay rights in every other way but are also anti-marriage equality. Why? Why does it affect you in any way? It's not like anyone is talking about taking away a heterosexual's right to marry.

People who love each other should be able to marry each other or not as they wish. People who want kids and can care for them properly should have them, people who don't and can't shouldn't. It's that simple. We have an awful lot of control over these things today, the capability for a whole new level of personal freedom and choice.

We need to strip away all the laws that take away anyone's rights and worry about people hurting each other instead of who we can continue to oppress and how to best oppress them. Politically, spiritually, and in our attitudes as well. If that happens it will be the moment America truly becomes The Beautiful.

The Biggest Threat to the Sanctity of Marriage

The answer is simple: Civil recognition of marriage.

How did I get there? Well, the first easy answer is divorce and I've been watching the campaign of John Marcotte since reading about it in the Huffington Post a few days ago with amusement and interest. See, I have been saying that for a few years now (it came up in an argument with my father, truth be told) that marriage lost any sanctity it may have had when divorce became a common thing, almost more of a rule than an exception. Couples go into marriage expecting that it will succeed but always knowing, in the back of their minds, that if it's a mistake they have a way out that may require a lot of hassle but is ultimately easier than it ever has been before.

One day while I was waiting for someone on 72nd Street in Manhattan I noticed a giant sign in a window that read, "Sale! Divorces $500!" It broke my heart.

I firmly believe we need a divorce mechanism, there are some brutally bad marriages that need dissolution. However, it makes no sense that two people of the same sex who take their vows seriously can't avail themselves of the option when divorce (a much larger threat to "traditional" marriage) is readily available with not much sacrifice beyond money and, hey, you can even shop for sales to help that part!

However, divorce does not really touch on the sanctity thing in the end, as it is a civil procedure that is in no way sacred. In fact, unless you are married in a religious institution according to it's laws and customs, there is no sanctity whatsoever in marriage. Marriages performed by a justice of the peace, a ship captain, or an Elvis impersonator are not sacred, they are secular and legal. If you are Catholic and divorced and remarried there is no sanctity, as the Church will not recognize such marriages and they are technically adultery even though accepted in general society. There are plenty of examples of taking the sanctity out of marriage that apply to heterosexual couples without even entering the realm of true adultery, domestic violence, or other abuses of the institution.

So, can we just let go of that term when we're talking about gay marriage?

Honestly, I understand why some people hate the semantics of this notion, but I think that it would be totally fine if everyone who married outside a religious institution was considered to have a "civil union" (regardless of anyone's gender) and people who took religiously sanctioned vows could use "marriage". Anyone could get a civil union and each religion could have free domain over their own marriage rules. Everyone could have the level of legal and societal protection that suits each couple while religious people could have their sacred ceremonies truly be sanctified rather than a religious/civil hybrid.

Ahhh, separation of church and state, what an original notion that seems to be these days!

Zooey Deschanel Pulls a Fast One?

For those who don't follow Top Chef Masters, two nights ago the elimination challenge was to cook one course of a five-course meal for Zooey Deschanel and her friends. Right after they were given the challenge instructions they watched a video message from the hostess with a huge list of what was supposedly her dietary restrictions: Vegan, soy-free, and gluten-free, just what a chef that doesn't specialize in those diets fears more than anything. As someone who used to be vegan, gluten-free, and yeast-free I was actually quite excited to see what these masters could do within that framework, but I also felt pretty bad for the ones who had never gone near that sort of diet before because I know how hard it was for me to keep up with my own restrictions. Overall, an exciting challenge, though.

We watched the show last night and so it was still in my mind as I ended up watching Craig Ferguson's show a few hours later. Ms. Deschanel was the guest and they were talking about baseball and the Dodgers, which led to this discussion of food:

Ferguson: "Do you like the Dodger dogs?"

Deschanel: "No."

CF: "What?! Oh, no, you're vegetarian, aren't you?"

ZD: "Well, I, uh, you know, go vegetarian sometimes."

CF: "Sometimes, like Lindsey Lohan."

ZD: [laughs and says something I can't make out] "...well, but I don't do Dodger dogs... I have been known to go vegetarian."

So, was this Top Chef Masters challenge simply cooked up by the writers and producers? I mean, someone who goes, "vegetarian sometimes," is hardly in a position to demand food with loads of tough restrictions. I know, I know, it's better television if she claims this is actually her diet, but the fact that these two things aired within two days really highlights the bullshit that we are fed all the time.

Just to be clear, I have nothing against people who can't stick to the vegetarian thing, I went from eating nothing but grains, beans, and veggies to a full-blown carnivore who likes her meat practically bloody so I can't say anything. I have nothing against Ms. Deschanel for whatever she chooses to put in her body, but this whole thing of people claiming a special diet and then it turning out to be not exactly truthful is such a weird by-product of these times.

I have a friend who has been telling people for years that he's a vegetarian, but if you ask further he'll tell you he eats chicken most days. So, then he'll say, "Well, I don't eat pork or beef," but if you invite him to a barbecue and offer him a piece of chicken and a well-cooked steak or burger, take a wild guess what he usually picks...