D.C. council recognizes gay marriage
I'm tapped...just...wow. Overcome with pride in all of these places and people who have recognized that LGBT rights are equal rights.
Now I'm going to go before I have a Glenn Beck moment.
*sniffle* I just...love my country... ROFL
Rants and Raves home
07 April 2009
Ready to wed, part two: Vermont
Vermont passes gay-marriage bill
There's not much I can add to my thoughts on same-sex marriage after the uplifting message delivered by the Iowa Supreme Court just the other day. But I think it's important to also recognize the Vermont legislature for standing up to a governor who seems to believe that milquetoast excuses will somehow soften the blow of a gubernatorial veto on such an important piece of legislation. Dear Governor Douglas, we all realize that the battle is far from over. But now that there is a bill in place allowing same-sex couples to marry, the obstacles you say they will yet face will be weaker in the confrontation.
To the 43 states currently prohibiting gay marriage through legislation...get your heads out of your asses. To the next crop of states (New Hampshire and Maine) considering same-sex marriage bills: pass them as soon as possible!
And to everyone out there, I would like to point out one simple part of our legislative framework: our states are set up to recognize the rights of those from other states as if they live in our own, and to recognize rulings and decisions of other states as valid. That being said, it is unlawful for any state (even one with anti-same-sex marriage legislation on the books) to not recognize the lawful marriage of a same-sex couple if it was carried out according to the law in a state that allows and performs same-sex marriages. Chew on that for a bit.
Rants and Raves home
There's not much I can add to my thoughts on same-sex marriage after the uplifting message delivered by the Iowa Supreme Court just the other day. But I think it's important to also recognize the Vermont legislature for standing up to a governor who seems to believe that milquetoast excuses will somehow soften the blow of a gubernatorial veto on such an important piece of legislation. Dear Governor Douglas, we all realize that the battle is far from over. But now that there is a bill in place allowing same-sex couples to marry, the obstacles you say they will yet face will be weaker in the confrontation.
To the 43 states currently prohibiting gay marriage through legislation...get your heads out of your asses. To the next crop of states (New Hampshire and Maine) considering same-sex marriage bills: pass them as soon as possible!
And to everyone out there, I would like to point out one simple part of our legislative framework: our states are set up to recognize the rights of those from other states as if they live in our own, and to recognize rulings and decisions of other states as valid. That being said, it is unlawful for any state (even one with anti-same-sex marriage legislation on the books) to not recognize the lawful marriage of a same-sex couple if it was carried out according to the law in a state that allows and performs same-sex marriages. Chew on that for a bit.
Rants and Raves home
05 April 2009
"Corn-fed and ready to wed!" -- Iowa S.C. upholds same-sex marriage
Gay marriages expected to begin in Iowa April 24
Iowa Supreme Court: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
The Meaning of Iowa's Gay Marriage Decision - TIME
"The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution." ~ from the text of the Iowa Supreme Court's 68-page decision, which you can find here.
Way. To. Go. Iowa.
It is truly heartwarming to be able to look at my dearest friends in the LGBT community and know that in one more place their right to marry and share a life together has been affirmed. And why shouldn't they? Love is blind, as they say (whoever "they" are), so people should not be restricted from showing love to those for whom they feel it. My feelings for a man are no more or less valid than my sister's love for her girlfriend or my best friend's desire to find a man with whom he can share his life.
Separation of church and state means that for the state, no religious doctrine should dictate the rights of the people. Why should I be subject to the laws of Christianity when I identify as Jewish? Why should atheists or agnostics in our "free" society be bound by strictures to which they themselves do not subscribe?
The Iowa Supreme Court, through their decision and the accompanying explanation, have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they understand this and that they are acting in the interest of the people -- all the people, not just the ones who believe that their religion should dictate everybody else's way of life. (I realize that might sound offensive. Deal.)
Of course, there are people who disagree. Just read the first article linked above; the tone of the entire piece is so negative that I'm almost forced to question the writer's impartiality. That is the primary reason why, in the interest of showing multiple sides to what has become a complicated issue, I've given you three articles instead of the typical one. At any rate, all this means is that the fight isn't over. The LGBTA (the "A" stands for "Allies", heterosexual individuals who identify with and support the LGBT community's struggle for equality) community will be forced to not only fight for new ground, but to emphatically defend the ground we have won in this decision.
I'm struck at the irony of those who are against same-sex marriage feeling disenfranchised by this decision. Here's a quick thought: this isn't about you. I know that hurts, but for the umpteenth time I will remind you to consider how you would feel if someone tried to take from you the fundamental right to share your life with the person you love. Nobody said you have to attend a same-sex wedding, and nobody is forcing you to change your beliefs or begin carrying rainbow flags. What we are asking you -- what I am asking you -- is to, for the sake of whatever god you follow, MYOB and let other people seek happiness too.
Rants and Raves home
Iowa Supreme Court: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
The Meaning of Iowa's Gay Marriage Decision - TIME
"The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution." ~ from the text of the Iowa Supreme Court's 68-page decision, which you can find here.
Way. To. Go. Iowa.
It is truly heartwarming to be able to look at my dearest friends in the LGBT community and know that in one more place their right to marry and share a life together has been affirmed. And why shouldn't they? Love is blind, as they say (whoever "they" are), so people should not be restricted from showing love to those for whom they feel it. My feelings for a man are no more or less valid than my sister's love for her girlfriend or my best friend's desire to find a man with whom he can share his life.
Separation of church and state means that for the state, no religious doctrine should dictate the rights of the people. Why should I be subject to the laws of Christianity when I identify as Jewish? Why should atheists or agnostics in our "free" society be bound by strictures to which they themselves do not subscribe?
The Iowa Supreme Court, through their decision and the accompanying explanation, have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they understand this and that they are acting in the interest of the people -- all the people, not just the ones who believe that their religion should dictate everybody else's way of life. (I realize that might sound offensive. Deal.)
Of course, there are people who disagree. Just read the first article linked above; the tone of the entire piece is so negative that I'm almost forced to question the writer's impartiality. That is the primary reason why, in the interest of showing multiple sides to what has become a complicated issue, I've given you three articles instead of the typical one. At any rate, all this means is that the fight isn't over. The LGBTA (the "A" stands for "Allies", heterosexual individuals who identify with and support the LGBT community's struggle for equality) community will be forced to not only fight for new ground, but to emphatically defend the ground we have won in this decision.
I'm struck at the irony of those who are against same-sex marriage feeling disenfranchised by this decision. Here's a quick thought: this isn't about you. I know that hurts, but for the umpteenth time I will remind you to consider how you would feel if someone tried to take from you the fundamental right to share your life with the person you love. Nobody said you have to attend a same-sex wedding, and nobody is forcing you to change your beliefs or begin carrying rainbow flags. What we are asking you -- what I am asking you -- is to, for the sake of whatever god you follow, MYOB and let other people seek happiness too.
Rants and Raves home
04 April 2009
Happy Birthday NATO, and...many more?
Obama hails 5,000 more NATO forces for Afghanistan
In the build-up to NATO's 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg/Kehl, there has been a lot of speculation from every corner about President Obama's campaign to increase Allied support for combat and reconstructive operations in Afghanistan. The article above, courtesy of The Huffington Post, announces that the Allies have volunteered an additional 5000 troops for military training and police purposes. While not combat troops, this can be touted as a success on President Obama's part and an indication that while NATO may yet be suffering from an identity crisis, the time for this organization is not quite over.
Now more than ever, on its 60th birthday, NATO is suffering from a crisis of relevance that is not easily solved. The European Union has increased in strength as a viable economic and political agreement between its member countries, and for several years the discussion has turned toward supporting a military framework within the EU. Such a transition, of course, would ensure NATO's complete obsolescence in a few short years; after all, how many organizations are necessary to promote security on the European continent, and what sorts of drawbacks exist for the country that overextends itself through military commitment to two security-focused IGOs?
Anybody who knows me understands that I have a special love for NATO. I am the last one to hope that the organization falls into the category of irrelevant commitments, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility. That being said, it is time for the Allied states to come together for the express purpose of determining where they will take the organization in the next several years. As convenient as it may seem for EU member countries to consolidate their cooperation into one overarching intergovernmental mechanism, I believe they run the risk of hyperextending themselves in other areas if they attempt military integration through the EU rather than updating the existing frameworks of NATO.
The biggest risk at this point, clearly, is economic. With the recession continuing across the continent (and indeed, the world), it is folly to abandon the bodies and protocols in place for military support and defence while attempting at the same time to build similar mechanisms under a different helm. It makes far more sense at the present to maintain NATO as the primary collective security alliance; redefine the organization's aims and abilities as necessary; and focus energy in the EU on turning back the tide of economic recession.
It happens every year, of course -- this question of NATO's relevance and if/when the foreign ministers will meet in the NAC for the last time -- but for the moment, if I had a chance to address those heads of state I would remind them that there are more pressing matters about which to concern themselves, and to waste the time and resources to shift gears at such a crucial juncture would be one of the worst possible decisions to make.
Rants and Raves home
In the build-up to NATO's 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg/Kehl, there has been a lot of speculation from every corner about President Obama's campaign to increase Allied support for combat and reconstructive operations in Afghanistan. The article above, courtesy of The Huffington Post, announces that the Allies have volunteered an additional 5000 troops for military training and police purposes. While not combat troops, this can be touted as a success on President Obama's part and an indication that while NATO may yet be suffering from an identity crisis, the time for this organization is not quite over.
Now more than ever, on its 60th birthday, NATO is suffering from a crisis of relevance that is not easily solved. The European Union has increased in strength as a viable economic and political agreement between its member countries, and for several years the discussion has turned toward supporting a military framework within the EU. Such a transition, of course, would ensure NATO's complete obsolescence in a few short years; after all, how many organizations are necessary to promote security on the European continent, and what sorts of drawbacks exist for the country that overextends itself through military commitment to two security-focused IGOs?
Anybody who knows me understands that I have a special love for NATO. I am the last one to hope that the organization falls into the category of irrelevant commitments, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility. That being said, it is time for the Allied states to come together for the express purpose of determining where they will take the organization in the next several years. As convenient as it may seem for EU member countries to consolidate their cooperation into one overarching intergovernmental mechanism, I believe they run the risk of hyperextending themselves in other areas if they attempt military integration through the EU rather than updating the existing frameworks of NATO.
The biggest risk at this point, clearly, is economic. With the recession continuing across the continent (and indeed, the world), it is folly to abandon the bodies and protocols in place for military support and defence while attempting at the same time to build similar mechanisms under a different helm. It makes far more sense at the present to maintain NATO as the primary collective security alliance; redefine the organization's aims and abilities as necessary; and focus energy in the EU on turning back the tide of economic recession.
It happens every year, of course -- this question of NATO's relevance and if/when the foreign ministers will meet in the NAC for the last time -- but for the moment, if I had a chance to address those heads of state I would remind them that there are more pressing matters about which to concern themselves, and to waste the time and resources to shift gears at such a crucial juncture would be one of the worst possible decisions to make.
Rants and Raves home
01 April 2009
When "The Next Generation" means Star Trek reruns...
My Uterus, Husband, and I Agree - No Children
I remember sitting at the family dinner table last Easter, when my brother and his fiancee brought up the idea of children to my mom. The exact words escape me, but the point was "sorry Mom, no grandkids from us." Reading the article linked above, courtesy of The Frisky, brought me back to that conversation and several others I've had with my Mom on the topic since then.
You see, I am now my mother's only hope.
My s-i-l to be has great reasons for not wanting children, among them the exact explanation that Divine Caroline brings up: "I want it to be all about my husband...I want his life to be all about me, too." Well played, and more admirable than lamentable, IMHO.
Slightly unrelated but still in the same ballpark of questions and answers is the argument I got against marriage to begin with -- if someone has no respect for a particular institution or feels that they can live their life fully and happily without it, why on earth would they do it to satisfy another's wishes, or just to fit in with a crowd that is increasingly coupled up?
When I was a little girl all I wanted when I came home from a hard day of being the President, a doctor, a lawyer, a ballerina and my night shift at McDonald's was to come in the house to see my handsome, sweet and successful husband and kiss my 2-3 well-behaved and intelligent children. (Ambition has never been a problem...) Now I'm almost 23. I look around me and see college friends...high school friends...married with one or two children and I think, good for you. If you're doing what makes you happy then stick with it. But it's not for me.
And I don't know into which category I fall just yet. It's possible that my disdain for marriage and my unwillingness to have children are just by-products of my generation, where it's acceptable and even encouraged to expand your horizons and make something of yourself before you attempt to make something of someone else. Maybe I'll change my mind.
But maybe I won't. If I don't, though, and you feel the need to start asking questions, look for this article in your inbox.
Rants and Raves home
I remember sitting at the family dinner table last Easter, when my brother and his fiancee brought up the idea of children to my mom. The exact words escape me, but the point was "sorry Mom, no grandkids from us." Reading the article linked above, courtesy of The Frisky, brought me back to that conversation and several others I've had with my Mom on the topic since then.
You see, I am now my mother's only hope.
My s-i-l to be has great reasons for not wanting children, among them the exact explanation that Divine Caroline brings up: "I want it to be all about my husband...I want his life to be all about me, too." Well played, and more admirable than lamentable, IMHO.
Slightly unrelated but still in the same ballpark of questions and answers is the argument I got against marriage to begin with -- if someone has no respect for a particular institution or feels that they can live their life fully and happily without it, why on earth would they do it to satisfy another's wishes, or just to fit in with a crowd that is increasingly coupled up?
When I was a little girl all I wanted when I came home from a hard day of being the President, a doctor, a lawyer, a ballerina and my night shift at McDonald's was to come in the house to see my handsome, sweet and successful husband and kiss my 2-3 well-behaved and intelligent children. (Ambition has never been a problem...) Now I'm almost 23. I look around me and see college friends...high school friends...married with one or two children and I think, good for you. If you're doing what makes you happy then stick with it. But it's not for me.
And I don't know into which category I fall just yet. It's possible that my disdain for marriage and my unwillingness to have children are just by-products of my generation, where it's acceptable and even encouraged to expand your horizons and make something of yourself before you attempt to make something of someone else. Maybe I'll change my mind.
But maybe I won't. If I don't, though, and you feel the need to start asking questions, look for this article in your inbox.
Rants and Raves home
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
