So I thought the week was going well. On Tuesday I went down to D.C., to the Department of Homeland Security, for "Take Your Child To Work Day". It was pretty great showing the kids our magazine. I went with them to the presentation on border patrol dogs, and got to see two very cute puppies. All of this for work.
But then I learned that I was basically being forced to join the new project management team. This means no more editing. Since I was hired to be an editor and want to be an editor, this isn't exactly my idea of a fun job. Though everyone knows I am super organized, so I do make a good manager. I don't want to really go into details. The powers that be are trying to make it seem like I was given a choice in the matter, and that this is what's best for my career. But that's all ridiculous. So who knows what lies ahead with the job.
Anyway, I was stressed out and really upset all Weds/Thurs. And I had a lot left to edit on this book, that I just really wanted to finish. So I was not in a good mood.
So Friday I edited, then went to buy a tent (since we're planning our first camping trip!), and planted my lilies out front. Then I had my monthly massage, came home and had a nice dinner and watched Desperate Housewives for a few hours. All nice and calming, and John's been super understanding of my crappy mood.
Then today my graduation/birthday present arrived...a new laptop! So my mood is improving. (Actully FedEx tried to deliver it yesterday, literally 5 minutes after I left for my massage. Why did I not leave 5 minutes later?)
We have a BBQ tonight, which will probably be good... unless I get annoyed. We'll see. I will bring wine, I think.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
More on Marriage
Warning: Not all of this makes sense unless you're in my head. I have trouble really explaining what I think when it comes to this topic.
If you've been around me... well ever... you probably have at least some sense about my feelings on marriage. To summarize: I'm not against marriage, but I don't think it's necessary.
Well, the more I think about it, the more reasons I have to not be married. Lately, I've been very against large weddings and the stress and cost, etc. I mean, take a look at my family at any one holiday/celebration in the last year and you're probably understand me not wanting them all in the same room. I always run interference, but I would not want to do that on my wedding day.
But that's a rant for another time.
Today, I am anti-marriage because of the government's ability to control it. There are many subcategories under this broad idea, but for now, my rant is spurred by this article.
To summarize: PA has two marriage licenses. One for those getting married by an officiant, one for those doing a "self-uniting" ceremony (which sounds fun, btw).
Well, there's become some issues in that people have become less religious and don't always want a religious ceremony. In which case, they can under the first license just get married by a judge. But, more and more people have turned to getting friends/family ordained online. Something that is now being challenged.
A ruling in 2007 said that "ministers ordained online were not authorized to conduct weddings because they did not have established congregations and church buildings."
This is what set me off.
The government is granting certain rites to those who get legally married. So, they do have some rights to decide what it means to be married. I agree that random people off the street can't just marry you, or it's not legal. But where do we draw the line in what the government can dictate and what we want to decide for ourselves about our lives.
I think my big issue is that this statement gives cult leaders more rights to marry people than some others. A minister ordained online did go through training, should know laws etc. In my opinion, they are schooled enough to be given the right to legally marry people. But, we will take away this right from them not because they don't have the education, but because they don't have followers or a church?
So then someone who starts a cult-as long as they have x-number of people and a building that they meet in, can marry as many people as they want-and they will be legally valid. Even if this person has no education whatsoever in marriage law, they can go ahead and do it.
So what I'm really saying is that there needs to be a distinction between church and state-an ongoing problem for me. If you want a legal marriage, then you get it done by a government official. If you want a religious marriage, go to your priest or minister. They are two completely different things. That's my new stance-if you want both, you get to have two ceremonies. Or, you just pick the one you want. But if you're married by a church, you only get the perks of being married under that religion. You cannot get all the government perks until a judge or statesman marries you.
This is the problem with gay marriage in our country, people confuse legal marriage with religious marriage. But again, a rant for another day.
Now, I actually don't think a legal marriage is necessary at all and if I say I am in a relationship, I should get any perks that people who marry get, but I will grant the government the right to do their thing because that's just the way it is. And I currently don't have the power to change it. I'm not going to get married just to get health insurance. I think if both parties agree to a "spouse" status, you should get that coverage regardless of a piece of paper. But that's not going to change any time soon, so I will just choose to forgo that. I could just get married and get all those "perks" but I choose not to. I get that.
USAA has it partially right though. John and I ran into a problem when we went to Colorado. I was told he could be added to our rental car for no fee because he was my "spouse". We just had to prove that we lived together. So I got my Maryland license and all that jazz so we had the same address. But the rental car people wouldn't add him because we weren't married. (which, btw, was stupid because they couldn't prove we weren't married based solely on the fact that we had different last names, since plenty of women don't change their names now.) Anyway, after the trip I argued with USAA and the rental car company and now have a nice piece of paper stating their policy on a spouse. Which is not defined only by a legal or religious marriage, but includes same-sex partners, and people living together. Basically, if you consider yourself a couple, you are one.
At least in terms of renting a car. I still haven't fought to get John a bank account, as my spouse. Not sure what they'll think about that.
Quote of the day: I don't want my life to be dictated by what other people think.
So yeah, don't expect wedding invites any time soon.
PS: I tried to find something corrupt about Maryland's marriage laws. I was annoyed that the license fee varies between counties and that you must marry in the county you get your license from, but this is just priceless:
Maryland does not have common-law marriage or same-sex marriage, but you can marry your cousin. How fucked up is that?
If you've been around me... well ever... you probably have at least some sense about my feelings on marriage. To summarize: I'm not against marriage, but I don't think it's necessary.
Well, the more I think about it, the more reasons I have to not be married. Lately, I've been very against large weddings and the stress and cost, etc. I mean, take a look at my family at any one holiday/celebration in the last year and you're probably understand me not wanting them all in the same room. I always run interference, but I would not want to do that on my wedding day.
But that's a rant for another time.
Today, I am anti-marriage because of the government's ability to control it. There are many subcategories under this broad idea, but for now, my rant is spurred by this article.
To summarize: PA has two marriage licenses. One for those getting married by an officiant, one for those doing a "self-uniting" ceremony (which sounds fun, btw).
Well, there's become some issues in that people have become less religious and don't always want a religious ceremony. In which case, they can under the first license just get married by a judge. But, more and more people have turned to getting friends/family ordained online. Something that is now being challenged.
A ruling in 2007 said that "ministers ordained online were not authorized to conduct weddings because they did not have established congregations and church buildings."
This is what set me off.
The government is granting certain rites to those who get legally married. So, they do have some rights to decide what it means to be married. I agree that random people off the street can't just marry you, or it's not legal. But where do we draw the line in what the government can dictate and what we want to decide for ourselves about our lives.
I think my big issue is that this statement gives cult leaders more rights to marry people than some others. A minister ordained online did go through training, should know laws etc. In my opinion, they are schooled enough to be given the right to legally marry people. But, we will take away this right from them not because they don't have the education, but because they don't have followers or a church?
So then someone who starts a cult-as long as they have x-number of people and a building that they meet in, can marry as many people as they want-and they will be legally valid. Even if this person has no education whatsoever in marriage law, they can go ahead and do it.
So what I'm really saying is that there needs to be a distinction between church and state-an ongoing problem for me. If you want a legal marriage, then you get it done by a government official. If you want a religious marriage, go to your priest or minister. They are two completely different things. That's my new stance-if you want both, you get to have two ceremonies. Or, you just pick the one you want. But if you're married by a church, you only get the perks of being married under that religion. You cannot get all the government perks until a judge or statesman marries you.
This is the problem with gay marriage in our country, people confuse legal marriage with religious marriage. But again, a rant for another day.
Now, I actually don't think a legal marriage is necessary at all and if I say I am in a relationship, I should get any perks that people who marry get, but I will grant the government the right to do their thing because that's just the way it is. And I currently don't have the power to change it. I'm not going to get married just to get health insurance. I think if both parties agree to a "spouse" status, you should get that coverage regardless of a piece of paper. But that's not going to change any time soon, so I will just choose to forgo that. I could just get married and get all those "perks" but I choose not to. I get that.
USAA has it partially right though. John and I ran into a problem when we went to Colorado. I was told he could be added to our rental car for no fee because he was my "spouse". We just had to prove that we lived together. So I got my Maryland license and all that jazz so we had the same address. But the rental car people wouldn't add him because we weren't married. (which, btw, was stupid because they couldn't prove we weren't married based solely on the fact that we had different last names, since plenty of women don't change their names now.) Anyway, after the trip I argued with USAA and the rental car company and now have a nice piece of paper stating their policy on a spouse. Which is not defined only by a legal or religious marriage, but includes same-sex partners, and people living together. Basically, if you consider yourself a couple, you are one.
At least in terms of renting a car. I still haven't fought to get John a bank account, as my spouse. Not sure what they'll think about that.
Quote of the day: I don't want my life to be dictated by what other people think.
So yeah, don't expect wedding invites any time soon.
PS: I tried to find something corrupt about Maryland's marriage laws. I was annoyed that the license fee varies between counties and that you must marry in the county you get your license from, but this is just priceless:
Maryland does not have common-law marriage or same-sex marriage, but you can marry your cousin. How fucked up is that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)