the summer season.

ive never loved and hated the start of the season so much.

things are kicking up at starbucks and at GPA

so looking forward to the summer at both places - its going to be a LOT of fun.  i am working with the best group(s) of people i could ask for and literally have two seriously kick ass jobs!!

downside: im working a LOT (thank god i have not only one job, but two, in this economy) i just feel like i never see my husband, or my baby (which isnt true, it just feels like it)

i have to keep telling myself - we are doing this (working so much, so hard right now) to further our careers.  (onward and upward!)

mike and i work opposites.  wonderful for us as far as childcare.  terrible for social reasons.  he never sees me or our friends.  (remember all this is temporary.)


upside: great co workers (read: FRIENDS).  warm weather. fresh produce.  playing outside.  taking bella to do fun things like the beach and pool!


so, here we go summer-twenty-twelve.  i think you're going to rule.

xo.
m

gay marriage. or 'marriage'. or not marriage?

ok.

i have to write about it.

ive held off. and held off. and held off.  where do i start?  its been a challenge trying to figure out exactly how to say all the things i want to say.

well, tonight i got a lot of it out.  and felt like i could keep writing for hours. or days. who knows.

a friend of mine put up a status on facebook talking about north carolina.  it got 95 comments.  at one point i quoted someone saying, "(he said)'if youve never had the right to get married you're not losing anything, you're just not gaining.' (i said).... i think this is a huge part of the problem in the way that people think about the issue."

he thanked me?

i think he misunderstood.

and then the whole debate turned into arguing if jesus existed and about two people of the same sex cant get married because marriage is defined as a holy union between a man and a woman (semantics). and finally, i just couldnt take it anymore.  and i wrote a really lengthy response.  and i want to share it because i feel like i did a pretty good job finally putting down in words how i feel about the arguments and the issue.

not to offend anyone, but i think that this conversation is a good example of why its so hard to move forward on this issue.  what starts off as a conversation about gay marriage and whether or not two people of the same sex should be "allowed" to get married  and whether or not they "deserve" the same rights as people of the opposite sex when they get married...ultimately turns into an argument about religion and whether or not jesus existed...but to the issue, it doesnt even matter if he existed or not.  

regardless of what you or i or anyone believes to be true about jesus, its not relevant to the issue as far as our GOVERNMENT is concerned.  there is a reason we have (tried) to separate religion from our government and our laws.  its because you cant apply one religion('s beliefs, rules, definition of what is 'holy') in a religiously diverse country.  it doesnt work, and it isnt working.  whether or not same sex couples should be allowed to get 'married' has nothing to do with whether or not jesus existed.  when it comes to civil rights, its simply NOT FAIR, nor does it make any sense, to LEGALLY apply religious rules/beliefs/expectations to people who dont ascribe to said religion. . . and that's exactly what this is. 

 if you want to talk about the definition of marriage being a 'holy union between man and woman' and argue that THAT is why there is an issue with gay "marriage" then i say get out of the debate.  youre not really debating the issue, and youre missing the bigger picture. youre arguing over semantics and thats just another place people like to get hung up and argue while the real importance of this issue gets overlooked.  because  if it was as simple as the words used to define it, marriage wouldnt be a big deal to anyone.  if it was just about what you call it, it wouldnt matter.  why would you care whether or not you get married, why would it matter who else got married?  if its that simple, why does anyone even bother? if youre argument is that they cant get "married" because marriage is "this" but civil unions are ok with you...and that was REALLY what you thought, you wouldnt even bother to argue.  

you want to talk semantics?  fine.  in a HOLY institution (church), can a same sex couple get 'married'? probably not.  because that goes against the beliefs of the church. and thats fine.  a church/religion can set whatever rules they want, and if you believe in it, participate.  if you dont, dont participate in that religion.  but to this situation, it's irrelevant because thats not the point.  its not about whether or not you can have a same sex catholic wedding.  no one is arguing that.  supporters of same sex marriage are not petitioning churches to hold weddings there. 

but should a same sex couple be allowed to get 'married' under the law, if that law is governing things like taxes and rights to things like children, medical decisions, property, shared income, etc and that same law should have no religious strings attached.  yes, of course they should, and if the definition of the word is whats holding up the situation, change the definition, because a state separate from the church should have no say in 'holy unions' anyway. 

what happens if you take religion out of it?  what happens if you REALLY separate church and state?  if you can pretend for one minute that religion doesnt exist, that there is no bible saying its a sin, that there is no 'holy' part of the legal definition....where would the law be?  how would we justify keeping it from being legal?  i know there will be arguments from certain people that they 'cant imagine god doesnt exist.' or that you can't pretend there is no bible,  and i understand that for YOU, in your personal life, you cant imagine that.  but you have to know that there ARE people who dont believe the same thing you do.  and those people cant be expected to live under laws that are governed by something they think is make believe.  just like we wouldnt be expected to happily go along with it if all of a sudden the government started basing laws that affected your whole life, your rights to property and shared health insurance and taxes, on fairy tales.  it just seems really silly to me. 

this issue isnt about whether or not jesus existed.  and its not about semantics and what words you use to define marriage.  its about civil rights and whether or not its right and just to deny this person the right to something (whether or not they had it before) that this other person has always had.   i challenge someone to argue against same sex marriage from an atheist perspective, without strictly arguing semantics or looking for other ways to win the argument that have nothing to do with the REAL issue at hand. 

because that would be a new argument to me. 

tell me why my husband and i have the right to be 'married' and my friend and his boyfriend dont. . .this is real stuff and these are people's REAL LIVES - people who you dont know.  people you could pass on the street and you wouldnt know if they were married or not, and you wouldnt know if they were married to someone of the same sex (race, religion, political party, book club, hometown, whatever) or someone totally different from them.  and it whoever they were or werent married to, it wouldnt matter.  it wouldnt affect your life at all.  but it matters to THEM and their lives and their happiness, just like your same-sex-christian marriage matters to you and in a big, real and serious way.  

IT ISNT ANY DIFFERENT. 

who are you to undermine that based the wording of the definition?  just because a law or definition was written in the past doesnt mean its right eternally or that it cant or shouldnt be changed if and when it is found to be flawed.  in fact, words and their means have changed and will continue to change throughout history.(etymology: the study of the history of words, their origins and how their form and MEANING have changed over time.)  

and to be clear, earlier when i quoted bill, britt was right.  it wasnt a compliment.  that way of thinking is what keeps things (laws, countries, civilizations) stagnant, even if they arent working or are hurtful, damaging or wrong.  thank god that the civil rights activists of the past didnt think that way.

and that was that.  because that is how i feel. it doesnt matter what you believe about god.  because this isnt about you. 

xo.

   m.