citizenjane ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- bandaids over a system wed. apparently, when asked, madonna's p.r. person denies that she is getting married to what's-his-name. but, the woman on new york today, the one who talks about gossip, says her source (whoever that is...doesn't matter) claims that we shouldn't believe that. now what am i going to do? damn. nonetheless, back to the regularly scheduled program. i promised to write about gay marriage, didn't i? well, i've mentioned this before, but not in much detail. let me start by saying that my views on gay marriage, gayness and life in general has come, ahem, full circle. i started out as a child with basically no belief system with a set of really young parents who were into whatever floated their boats. then i became a bonafide jesus-freak (see: papa was a rolling stone became pkdaddy), then a bleeding heart liberal and now a sometimes-too-radical-for-her-own-pants type of person. (thank you maria, for the background). since i don't agree with straight marriages, i don't agree with gay marriage either. most of what we understand as heterosexual privilege is supported by straight marriage. letting gay people into the club won't solve the problem. its like the feminist question. liberal feminists, like our friends at NOW believe that if men would just accept women as equals, socially, economically and so forth, the problem will be solved. radical feminists (and other _____feminists--the terms are changing so fast...) have another idea. it was best said as SMASH THE PATRIARCHY. yeah, that's crazy talk, but it makes more sense. why should we keep putting bandaids over a system that was created for straight, white, propertied, christian men? who's social contract was that anyway? there's nothing crazy about making a new one. especially when the current one is so poorly crafted. what did thomas jefferson say about needing revolutions every 30 years? we just might be due. but back to that pesky gay marriage thing, you know in the context of covering the wounds for now. married hets (and straight ones, too) have it pretty good. they can dance in their heterosexual privilege--and sometimes not even realize it. yes, i understand that the legal parts of marriage, like: property rights, visitation, child custody, need to be dealt with somehow. people are already doing this with simple contract law. rich people have agreements about their property, unmarried people can execute powers of attorney, etc. for medical decisions and gay people (among others) are adopting and making legal agreements about children. courts aren't upholding some of these agreements, but they are coming around. you have to understand who is on the bench nowadays...aged lawyers. no, not all of them conservative, but enough to maintain the status quo. and the health insurance problem(s) could be fixed with universal health care (yes i know, a pipe dream in these united states), but the taxes and other economic benefits--they gotta go. that's what i mean when i say i'm not gonna subsidize your married-ass. sister rosalie has the in the alternative argument. i'd stand behind hers in the event that my utopia fails. you know why? because even though i don't like the concept/institution, i still think you're a jerk if you help pass a DOMA in your state. and no, your state isn't cool anymore either. one way or another, we gotta fuck with 'em. right, rosalie? - - - - - - - - - - i don't feel like talking about this anymore tonight. i've got to read more about our unequitable society and write expletives in the margins. you know, so i have something to say in class tomorrow. 00:24:35 - 2000-03-23 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||