Jun. 21, 2003 - 11:03 p.m.
Dear Vincent,
I certainly have at least a thought on the issue, though I may not max out quite at twelve. I'll have to count when I'm finished.
"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..."
When someone is convicted of a crime, they are automatically stripped of certain rights. Both those written (voting) and those implied (freedom of movement, privacy etc.). They have been deprived of their rights because they've done something wrong. Most things designated as wrong in society are things that hurt other people. It's simple logic. After all, why should a murderer have rights? If they have violated someone else's rights, than it is perhaps the most solid foundation of justice that they forfeit their own. An eye for an eye... We deprive them of their rights, because they are destructive of the rights of others. Minors cannot marry because we don't believe that they have had enough life experience to enter into what is supposed to be a permanent and tremendously life altering contract. We don't believe their judgment to be fully developed enough to make such decisions. Again, it's simple logic. Barely clearing the bitterness of the teenage years, most kids are equipped to make a decision like that. Anne's point is a very valid one- there are laws that discriminate with good reason. So what is the good reason for marriage laws to discriminate against gays? They are not all criminals who have done something to infringe on another's rights and thus invalidate their own. Nor, I might add, are they all minors, lacking the life experience that such a decision necessitates. That being said, I think that the aforementioned examples do not hold up when used to justify discriminatory marriage laws against gays.
"...insofar as it defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman..."
Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. But you know, I've always felt that the most important part of the marriage idea, was the union. The ideas encompassed in marriage, loyalty, fidelity, love, sincerity... I think these are inherently more important than the stipulation 'between a man and a woman.' After all, a good marriage cannot exist independently of such things. Yet it stands to reason, that a good marriage can exist independently of the 'man and woman' deal.
"If you don't want to do what is known as marriage, then why apply the term to what it is you do want to do?"
"...what is known as..." translates to "what is generally accepted." What is generally accepted changes, as it should. Marriage now, is not the same as it was a few centuries back. And that's a good thing. Otherwise Vincent, I probably would be valued at the going rate of five chickens, a cow and maybe, maybe, only if I was lucky, a wagon wheel or two. I would have been handed off to the most economically beneficial man who came a' callin. And if the powers that be saw fit to bless us, I'd get pregnant quickly, give birth to a few healthy males and my husband would be of the tolerable sort. Maybe, I would be blissfully ignorant and not know there was a better way of going about things. Or maybe he would die young and I could have some fun in the nearest haystack. I'm really glad that the definition of what marriage entails has changed.
Finally, I find it sickeningly amusing that people fling around the idea of 'preserving the sanctity of marriage.' Anyone need only look at divorce and infidelity rates to notice that many men and women have trouble preserving the sanctity of marriage. Yet society doesn't seem to care. It's not remarkable for people to get married and divorced many times, or even have an fling here and there. If men and women are not held to the 'sanctity of marriage' standards, than how could we possibly presume to with hold the rite of marriage from a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, while championing said standards? And I would agree Vincent, that if two people want their love legally recognized I don't see how it would hurt anyone. I think that any people who are willing to make lifelong commitments to someone they care for are an inspiration.
How many thoughts was that?
Shanaz is a friend of mine whose father came to the U.S. from India when he was just fourteen. Her immediate family is here, in the States. The rest of her family still resides back in India. Shanaz's immediate family is very progressive as compared her extended family in India. For instance, Shanaz will marry whom she wants. However, her Aunts back in India are fretting because at the lofty and matronly age of nineteen, Shanaz has no beau. There's not a suitor about, not even a nice boy who may yet turn out to be something. (Not for lack of interest I might add.) Shanaz simply hasn't the time for love. She's quite passionate about her work (with Save the Children). In any case, they keep begging her to send photos or come for a visit so they can introduce her to some nice young men. When Shanaz refuses with a characteristic grin her Aunts have hysterics.
My Aunt Lenore and I spent the day together. Occasionally, she needs the reassurance that she can still 'jive' with the younger side of the family. So I went and picked her up and took her to get her vendi two percent latté and then we went shopping. My Aunt Lenore has numerous noisy quirks which multiply each time I see her. A quirk that is as old as my first memories of Aunt Lenore is that she sings "lipstick on your collar" at the most inopportune intervals. The most recent of which was during my cousin Lilly's wedding. She had kicked her high heels off and was reclining at a table and singing under her breath, "lipstick on your collar, told a tale on youuuuuhooo, lipstick on your collar, said you were untruuueewhooo, bet your bottom dollar you and I are through, cause lipstick on your collar, told a tale on you, yeah!" Figures she would sing the one song she knows that makes reference to adultery at the only wedding in my family in years. The Macarena is absolutely her favorite line dance. She uses various slaughtered phrases the basis of which is "Hey Macarena!" to greet people. I'll come in the door and she throws her arms around me and yells joyfully with laughter breaking her words, "HEEEYYYYY MALEGWAINNIA!" Another Aunt Lenore classic is "WOMEN ON THE LOOSE!" Which is her favorite exclamation for a girls night out. Today, it was actualy sunny for a bit. So I'd let all the windows down on the car. Aunt Lenore was contentedly sipping her latté. We pulled up to a stoplight. On one side of my car, was a silver haired business man in his Lexis. On the other side, about four guys in a Sunfire. They looked to be about in their early twenties and one of them was cooly smoking and flicking his ashes unconcernedly out the window. Aunt Lenore looked at me gleefully. "I'm so glad we're spending time." she confided. "Me too." I said. She smiled wider. "WOMEN ON THE LOOSE!" she yelled. In my side mirror I watched as the business man turned to gawk. The guy smoking froze in one extended drag on his cigarette as he watched Aunt Lenore curiously. I smiled and I think even my teeth may have been blushing but I finished weakly with your cure all "cool?" Aunt Lenore smiled more, and then, drum role please, yelled, "GIRLS GONE WILD!" Now Vincent, I do not know where my Aunt Lenore picked that phrase up, but my Aunt Lenore is not the type of personality to have understood what she was yelling. Thankfully the light changed, though I must admit, it is my sincerest wish that this particular phrase is not one she has initiated into her various quirks. I do not need to add that the guy smoking almost swallowed his cigarette.
"Individuality counteracts personality just as lust counteracts love." Thoughts on that Vincent?
Mightily,
Meghan
what they said - what they will say
