• I guess I don’t get to travel. Maybe not for another 7 years. My son just said that he’d prefer if I put the money away for his college. #
• @randyripoff Agreed. #
• @LScribbens Are there after-market ones? That would be SO COOL! I could park it right next to my transporter pad. #
• Just “signed” a permission slip for my 15 y/o son to view the movie “Crash” as part of his sociology unit on racial prejudice. Great choice. #
• @randyripoff Spawn is my affectionate term for my solitary offspring, a 15 y/o man-child who is a weird-ass dude but no clowns or chains. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

• Spent 2 hours writing an extended blog post (http://zoelogic.net) on my views about marriage. #
• @LScribbens Thank you so much. It’s nice to know that someone besides me even reads what I post, let alone likes it. #
• @randyripoff Sorry I couldn’t make it. I have spawn duty tonight. #
• @LScribbens Just read your blog post from the 24th. Wow. You three have been through a lot. My heart goes out to you all. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

I figured since I promised a long time ago to post my ideas about marriage, I would actually finally get around to doing it.

First - those who do not know me should know that I’ve been married.  Twice.  To two different, yet each wonderful in his way, men.  For a total of about 15 years?  I lived with each of them before getting married.  I am no longer married, nor do I have any intention of being so in the future.

First a quote from Shaw’s Man and Superman that quite eloquently sums up my first argument (emphasis mine):

Those who talk most about the blessings of marriage and the constancy of its vows are the very people who declare that if the chain were broken and the prisoners left free to choose, the whole social fabric would fly asunder. You cannot have the argument both ways. If the prisoner is happy, why lock him in? If he is not, why pretend that he is?

But that is not my main issue.  My main problem with marriage is that it tries to be too many things simultaneously to be any of them well.

Marriage as an interpersonal relationship
We fall in love, we wish to show our dedication to the other person and to that love and  to honor the other person’s place in our life,  In our culture, this is done is through marriage.  Marriage not only holds that meaning to the individuals involved, but also to others observing the couple.  If a couple doesn’t get married, then it really isn’t “true” love, is it?

Many people may balk at this notion, but think carefully.  Doesn’t this assumption underlie how we look at other couples?  And often how we look at ourselves?  If a partner doesn’t wish to marry one, it means that somehow that love is less. I do not say this is true, I’m just saying that we are indoctrinated - or most of us are - into internalizing this concept from a very young age.   Quite honestly I believe it has f*cked up many a fine relationship, too.

Marriage as a religious sacrament
Marriage is thought by many to be a holy mandate from God.  I will admit that this area is something I’m not terribly familiar with, so I will not say much about it, except this: I believe that often this facet of marriage is at odds with the one listed above (and possibly those below as well), especially if one’s relationship with God and religion in general is at odds with that of the person(s) with whom one finds oneself in loving relationship(s).

The dominant religions get to mandate what defines marriage even for persons who do not subscribe to the religions - for example the reason most cited why gay marriage and polygamy are not or should not be permitted is that it is somehow against God, the Church (pick one), the Holy Scripture (pick one) or whatever.   The “one man-one woman” concept is simply a social construct dictated by specific religious beliefs.  I happen to live in a country that allegedly separates the affairs of the state from those of the church.  Marriage is one arena in which that is not only not the case, but in which very few people even question (certainly as pertains to polygamy) that association.  Quite frankly, I find that unAmerican.  Speaking of “the state” . . .

Marriage as a legal construct
Marriage is also clearly an institution that is configured and regulated by the government.  The government makes laws as to what marriage is (often based on religious criteria, as noted above).  Government decides what kinds of benefits or rights a person gets based on whether or not the person is married.  The disposition of pensions and estates are often determined not by the wishes of the person but by governmental mandates regarding marriage rights and responsibilities.

Certain things that are automatic for married persons, such as the right to visit a spouse in the hospital or make medical or financial decisions, require quite a bit of work for nonmarried persons to achieve.  In addition, try arranging a situation in which your spouse does not hold these rights and someone else does. Ha!   I hope you’re rich because you will need a very good lawyer and even then it is probably quite iffy.   Of course this overlaps quite nicely with the problems with . . .

Marriage as a social contract
Marriage is also an arrangement by which we agree to support one another financially, perhaps raise children together, make joint purchases such as homes and cars, be one another’s permanent date for all social occasions requiring one, etc, etc.  Again, many aspects of this social contract - financial support, childrearing issues, etc, are dictated by the legal construct of marriage (which, as I indicated before, in turn has been largely based on religious beliefs).  This creates a partially mandatory default social contract which makes problematic any attempts to deviate from the default contract.  For example, what if a group decides that they want to engage in marriage as a social contract, but that the contract involves multiple parents caring for multiple children, without regard to the biological parentage of the children.  No - this is not allowed in the social construct of marriage.

Marriage is a default social contract that allows for little and in some cases no variance.  What about a couple in which one person really wants a child and the other person doesn’t.  So their compromise is that the child-desiring parent handles the lion’s share of the responsibilities; and if the couple ever parts ways, the non-child-desiring spouse has no financial responsibility for the child.  Yes, this may sound offensive to some, but if it a compromise that both are happy with, and they are able to raise a happy child as well, who are we to question it?  But good luck in getting a divorce court judge to decide that the noncustodial parent does not have to pay child support.

When I got divorced this last time, my spouse and I owned a house together.  In the courtroom it was clear that unless we split the property down the middle, the judge would not have granted us our divorce.   What? If I decided that I had no right to, or interest in, this money, I would be denied a divorce until I agreed to take half?  I’m not kidding.  One of the cases before ours was just like that.  The woman just wanted out of the marriage and did not want anything.  The judge refused to grant her a divorce until she could come back with a settlement agreement that the judge considered equitable.  Knowing nothing about the marriage.  Maybe she just sat at home eating bon bons while her husband worked like a dog and then came home and did cooking and cleaning.  That doesn’t matter.  She still gets half. That is what the default social contract of marriage dictates. Huh?

How can marriage succeed at being all these different things successfully?
So, is there anything else that even attempts to encompass these myriad concepts simultaneously?  How can marriage possibly be all that it could be in each individual sphere, when it is trying to be so many things to so many different people?

In my opinion it generally works - when it does - because people simply accept it as the “only game in town,” decide it’s supposed to work, and so they make it work (or simply change their definition of success to match what they got).  Or they live somewhat or very unhappily.

If two people are wonderfully happy in their loving interpersonal relationship, but just aren’t cut out for the default social contract aspect - marriage doesn’t work.  Likewise if they are perfectly happy in the default social contract (perhaps with the minor variances that are allowed), but are aching for something different or more in their interpersonal relationships - then marriage as it is generally legally and religiously defined in the U.S. (including the part of the definition that makes adultery a crime against God and the state - huh?  A crime against the state? WTF?) doesn’t work.  Think of how many permutations of possibilities for incompatibility exist.  It’s a wonder marriage ever truly succeeds (and yes, I think it does sometimes).

So, Kate - what the hell do you want?
I want simply this:

1. Each of these aspects of marriage to be separated out and dealt with individually.
2. For government to withdraw from the spheres of interpersonal relationship when those relationships do not infringe on the rights of others.  All benefits, etc, that are currently based on marriage should be reconfigured to be conferred on individuals.
3. For religious beliefs to be completely eliminated from governmental law.
4. The elimination of all default social contracts.  Each contract is to be developed, worked out, and agreed to by the individuals involved - including sequelae of contract default.

Yeah, Kate - we’ll start on that right away.  Get back to us next week. LOL!

Well, a girl can dream, can’t she?

• Just finished applying leather conditioner to an antique hat. #
• @LScribbens LOL! I love it. #
• @LScribbens For a second I thought Mrs. Scribbens had anal sex with the the top referrer. I’m thinking - wow - that’s great log analysis! #
• Finished laundry. Next up, dishes. Yes I lead a fascinating life. Aren’t you envious. #
• How many 5 -6 year olds wake up one morning thinking “I really want to be a TOILET for Halloween? Just saw one in a STORE BOUGHT costume. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

• I didn’t wake up during the night last night - for the first time in weeks - hooray! #
• I won a “party” of 10 burritos from Chipotle by sticking my business card in a fish bowl. My coworkers are quite happy. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

From the Apple Web site

No on Prop 8

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.