Jun. 21, 2003 - 1:00 p.m.
Dear Meghan:
On the train, there is a poster that proclaims, “Considering abortion? Know your options! Dial 1-888-AM-I-PREG!” This makes me think that the people behind the sign are either anti-abortion (with the promoted ‘option’ being that of not going through with an abortion) or that abortion technology has evolved by leaps and bounds (with the ‘options’ including a uterus vacuum cleaner, a wire hanger, or some hi-tech gizmo with lights that can remove a fetus and paint toe nails at the same time).
I normally would not ponder the implications of a train poster, but on this particular day, a 77-year-old woman fell onto the elevated train tracks just as a train was approaching, thus most trains were delayed or re-routed as the fire department arrived to hydraulically lift a 30-ton car off of the woman (as you might imagine, the end result was that the woman died). Thus I had a lot of time to read the posters.
People watching is probably at its peak during such emergencies. I maintain that Chicago is secretly jealous of New York and the events of September 11, and is quietly hoping a crisis will happen so the country can see how brave and bold we all are. The Chicago Transit Authority (“CTA”) folks were all very pumped up about the situation. One fellow stopped me as I was walking up the stairs to the train platform and said, “What circuit you lookin’ for?” Now in civilian life, ‘circuit’ doesn’t mean much in the context of riding trains, but it took only a second and a half to realize he meant ‘what train line do you ride?’. “Brown – north,” I said, giving him the abridged version of which train line I wanted to take and which direction I wanted it to take me. “That way,” he said hurriedly, jabbing his finger toward an adjacent platform. “That way.” Like my initial reaction to the Jesus guy in my last letter, I said a quick “cool” and walked on.
Naturally, all of the people on the adjacent platform were dizzy with confusion – it’s amazing how a change in routine, even if it comes down to a different train platform, makes people wack. There were a lot of non-conversations at this point, with people mumbling things aloud to no one in particular, either looking for verification or kindred angst. “This is ridiculous.” “Oh, they don’t know what they’re doing.” “I can’t believe this.” “Shit, man. Shit.” “The CTA sucks.”
It did not escape me, having heard about the accident prior to leaving the law firm gig, that one train stop away, a woman was dying or was already dead. So I kept my non-conversations to myself, choosing instead to wait for the eventual train, wherein I observed the train posters and started jotting down notes for this letter.
Another e-quaintence of mine, Anne, wrote an interesting letter to our mini-circle of chat room friends the other day about gay marriage. Anne is not a “how are you/I am fine” kind of writer. In her letter, she made mention that a Canadian court “ruled that marriage laws were discriminatory and thus unconstitutional. Well, yes, the present law discriminates, insofar as it defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But somehow we're supposed to believe that discrimination is an inherently bad thing. It calls to mind lots of inequities suffered by blacks, women, gays, and various minorities--inequities that have been and should be fought, zealously. And society's better for it. Giving women the right to vote is a good thing. A hotel denying reservations to someone because of his skin color is a bad thing, and so forth.”
“Lots of laws, though, discriminate with good reason. We don't allow convicts the right to vote. Minors cannot marry, for example, because they cannot give consent,” she continued. “So the present marriage laws discriminate. They should. I don't see what gays and lesbians have to gain from changing the definition of the word. If you don't what to do what is known as marriage, then why apply the term to what it is you do want to do?”
I like that Anne put this out there, as it is very easy to internalize a “that sucks” or “that’s good” reaction and move on to the next great adventure of the day. I, naturally enough, had to respond.
“Admittedly, I am not a proponent of the sanctity of marriage, as I find it an extension of male ownership of another human being. A cursory look at which participant in an alleged union of souls usually changes their name to the other's I believe bears that out,” I began. “Having said that, I am also not anti-marriage a'tall. I'm in favor of anything that may give marriage a slightly better than 1:2 ratio for failure, be it gay, lesbian, etc…. I'm also in favor of any legal recourse that might benefit someone who is with another who dies. Further, I am in favor of anything that doesn't hurt me directly - and two (or more) people having their commitment/love legally recognized doesn't hurt me in the least. If anything, it's more of an inspiration.”
I concluded with what I think is a nearly profound thought. “All events lead to subsequent events that are both positive and negative. To avoid perceived negative reactions, one must avoid the action to begin with.”
Thought you might have a thought or twelve on the subject.
Cosmically,
Vincent
what they said - what they will say
