citizenjane ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- not very twenty-first century tuesday late apparently judge benjamin cardozo is the jesus, er...the coming messiah. and not just in new york, my friend. i've had just about enough of his rubbish about torts and contracts and funny business. really, now. 48 more days, 48 more days, 48 more days. then i'll be an enforcer. as of now, an unpaid enforcer. but that very well might change. - - - - - - - i should sell my tv. i haven't been watching it. sometimes i put it on in the morning for noise. i used to like the today show. but now i've got "good day new york." i enjoy these noises better because they often make fun of each other while i'm checking my email in the morning. then, if i happen to be listening to their noise around 9am (this happens on tuesdays), they give a shout out, really, a shout out to queen latifah. nothing funnier than a white-haired, middle aged newscaster giving a shout out to queen latifah. but seriously, i haven't watched the television in the pm in ages. i'm missing all of these lovely programs that some very lovely people are obcessed with. freaks and geeks, the simpsons, party of five,... [see? i don't even know what's on television anymore]. on principle, i should at least be watching buffy. given its my name and all. i do own the movie, but that's not very twenty-first century of me is it? oh well. i got some really wonderful responses about my entry earlier today. i am not the only one who believes that the current institution of marriage is for suckers. rock on sweet sister rosalie and toshiro, the man with good musical taste. my words even compelled a real, live lawyer to write me. i was thinking more about things i said yesterday (you know, as i was taking a 15 question multiple-choice exam based entirely on a "fictional" woman who marries a millionaire on television) and i think i'd like to clarify/add/expand a few things. you know, if you don't mind: i said, "i can live like simone de beavoir or the future people in woman on the edge of time or madonna or all these other people who are satsified with living their own lives." what i really meant was that i want to live like that. and i really do. we've all grown up simply assuming we would have some sort of joint home/bed/domain/stock options/whathaveyou and its really hard to imagine yourself with out it. especially when you're in love or subject to residual parental/familial/religous control or just plain turned on by the way the people seem on our great televised programs. i grew up like that. nevermind that my mother's been married three times, i moved around constantly for most of my life and my brother and i actually jumped for fucking joy when my parents' divorce was final. (it was just that necessary). i also have nothing against monogamy and nothing against people who do. i'm just a really jealous sort and couldn't DEAL with that. [pause] nope, really couldn't deal, but i see no reason to force people to do so. i also think people should go ahead to the church/park/retreat/whateveah and have themselves "married"/committed/joined-at-the-hip/whatevah if they want to. i'm all for doing things if you want to, however, don't expect me to subsidize your married"/committed/joined-at-the-hip/whatevah-ed ass, ok? and i mean that loosely, i guess. i know it ain't always easy being marital. not always cost-efficient (men in general have not proven to be cost-efficient either, but i'll save that for another day), not always fair, not always exciting. but still. i don't want you getting tax-breaks just because. just because has always been a horrible argument, UNLESS YOU ARE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. however, i am not. ...tomorrow: gay marriage: the "progressive's" dilemma. 00:05:09 - 2000-03-22 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||