Right on! Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is great not just because it turns Sunday night into second Saturday, but also because it offers a chance to reflect on hard-won rights.
It's also a day to think about the fights that still need to be fought (right, LGBT friends?).
In regards to marriage and civil union rights for ALL citizens, my very wise friend Kate T. said it well:
"The question remains, however, why the government should have any role in people's relationships.
Why do I need a piece of paper essentially promising that I sleep with someone to grant me a tax break or rights to their insurance? How in any way does that make sense?
What exactly are we trying to measure with marriages or civil unions? Commitment? Love? Fidelity? Are these things that a) can be measured and b) can be measured by participating in a government institution? 50% of divorced Americans would probably say no.
Marriage and commitment is an important part of huge percentage of the population's religion, culture and/or individual values. I support all of those people. I just don't understand why the government gets involved in things that are religious, cultural or relate to individual values.
Civil unions may be a step in the right direction, but the problem that remains is one of scope: these unions cannot begin to address the myriad types of significant relationships in people's lives.
If I live with the same people for five years, we can't all go down to city hall and apply for an 'urban family union' license. And yet these bonds - often as profound and enduring as romantic love - do not afford the same entitlements.
And that's just a 'for instance'. We live in an age where the nuclear family is increasingly becoming obsolete. Families take all shapes and forms, and frankly it's none of the government's business what that shape and form is. What we really need is an examination of, a discussion of and a complete and total overhaul of relationship-based government entitlements structures."
Lady, those are most definitely auto-tune worthy words! Sing it girl.
Your sex is NOT between the legs, but between your ears. That's why, marriage, what ever structure or form "committed relationships" take to ensure sanctioned entitlements between 2, 3, 4 or more people....it should not be based on whether or not your penis or vagina or other reproductory related organs work or not.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of people born with non working parts, and barely identified as either whole male, or whole female, maybe even a little of both or none at all, therefore, it certainly shouldn't be based on that assumption. However, I do appreciate the effort our civilized society tried to put forth to preserve some measure of integrity of the traditionally defined "family" for the sake of children born of a union. But, hey...even that idea is changing. You don't need marriage, hell, you don't even need a husband, or need to KNOW the guy to have a kid. And Elton J and his life partner just had a kid (and intend to raise "their" baby--the offspring of Elton's sperm....w/ a little help from a female incubator, so did Nicole Kidman; So, there are new definitions of what goes into making/ "having children" -- to a whole new level.
It's time the govt catches up to society's changing times.