Squeezing breasts could prevent cancer, best study ever says
Getting to second base, the holy grail for hormonal boys, is now science: New research has shown that squeezing breasts could prevent malignant breast cells from causing cancer. This doesn’t give pervy dudes license to grope you on the subway, ladies, but it does mean boob-grabbing should be a regular part of your self-care routine (yes, absolutely try it DIY-style).
May you have long, happy lives with one another, and, in the not-too-distant future, be able to enjoy something other than a "separate but not-really-equal" status as well.
Wow. 18 years. In some ways, it feels so much shorter — why only yesterday … — and in other ways, it feels like we’ve been married forever (in a good way).
I consider myself the luckiest guy in the world, to have Margie as spouse, friend, and lover.
Washington, D.C. — Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), criticized President Obama’s decision to use his Inauguration Day address to further divide the nation on the question of what is marriage.
Really? You mean he came up with something new to divide us? Because, you know, the nation is already divided on whether gays should be allowed to marry — though an increasing number, now at least a plurality, think they should.
The President chose to make a veiled reference …
Can you be divisive if you’re making only veiled references?
… to redefine marriage when he said “our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law.”
Well, he might have been talking about labor law, where in many (most?) places, employees can still be fired for being homosexual. Nobody asks about your sexual habits with your wife when you apply for a job, Brian, but apparently it remains something that you can get terminated for … if you’re gay.
But, no, I suppose he was primarily talking about marriage equality.
“Gay and lesbian people are already treated equally under the law,” Brian Brown responded. “They have the same civil rights as anyone else; they have the right to live as they wish and love whom they choose.
If it's a right, it shouldn't be up for a vote.
Far be it from me to disagree, Brian, but bullshit. We’ve already noted how employment prejudice is legal, something I think we’ll both agree impacts gays much more than straights.
But while the courts have ruled that homosexual acts can’t be made illegal (Lawrence v. Texas, which I suspect you weren’t thrilled about, either, Brian), the idea that simply legalizing gay sex is the same as giving gays the same right as straights is being obtuse.
Because, of course, “love and marriage … go together like a horse and carriage.” But according to NOM, gays cannot — or should not — be married. The legal rights, privileges, advantages, and obligations that come with marriage are off the table.
That is not equal treatment under the law, Brian.
What they don’t have is the right to redefine marriage for all of society.
No … society has that right. It has that right through its own changing mores. It has that right through legislative and executive action by elected representatives. And it has that right through a system of government with a constitution that does things like demand equal protection under the law.
And how does allowing gays to marry redefine it? When interracial marriage was legalized, did that “redefine” marriage for same-race couples?
In fact, six federal courts have rejected the idea that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court in a summary decision in 1972.
Hmmm. Roe v. Wade was in 1973. Are you suggesting that can’t or shouldn’t be revisited, either?
In point of fact, in more recent years, a variety of federal courts in recent years have upheld gay equality under the law — regarding DOMA, regarding gay marriage (in California), etc.
Furthermore, the vast majority of states have codified the commonsense view held for thousands of years that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Tradition! It's great for music, but not the ultimate foundation of law
It is common, but not necessarily sensible. It is traditional, which is fine enough, but there have been lots of traditional things that we gave up or changed over time.
The President is profoundly wrong to imply that those who have acted to protect marriage have denied anyone’s rights by doing so.”
I’ll note that the UN’s the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 23, notes that marriage is a fundamental human right. Of course, we all know the UN is the font of all evil. So, closer to home, we have fourteen Supreme Court rulings have identified marriage as a fundamental, foundational civil right.
So how is it not depriving gays a right if they can have a loving, caring, intimate, lifelong relationship, alike in every fundamental way to a straight couple, with the exception of the plumbling … but can’t get a civil marriage?
Brown continued: “A presidential inauguration should be a time for the nation to come together; instead President Obama chose to voice his support for a radical agenda advanced by some of his biggest campaign contributors to redefine marriage for everyone.
Note, Brian: not all supporters of gay marriage are, in fact, gay.
Is it "radical" if it's the plurality?
Indeed, given that plurality (at least; some polls give it a majority) that favors gay marriage, calling it a “radical agenda” wavers between paranoid, hyperbolic, and just plain silly.
Marriage brings our nation together.
Agreed, Brian, unless you start arbitrarily excluding folks from it.
The concept of gay ‘marriage’ would have been totally alien to our founding fathers, …
Interracial and inter-religious marriage would have been totally outrageous to most of our founding fathers, too, Brian. Copyright issues regarding for moving pictures and television and Internet video sites would have been inconceivable. The idea of firearms that could shoot as fast as the finger could pull the trigger — or even faster — would have been sheerest fantasy. So?
… and the protection and advancement of marriage between one man and one woman will immeasurably serve the common good of this country and further strengthen our Union.
So you say.
Today the President should have thrown his support behind this beautiful vision of men and women coming together in love to raise the next generation.
I think he did. You just didn’t like the combinations he was recognizing.
Nonetheless, we pro-marriage Americans pledge to defend the institution which the President has chosen to undermine once again.”
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, Brian. My marriage doesn’t feel undermined. A pity that yours is so shaky.
Hi, Suzanne. May I call you Suzanne? Wait, is it unmanly for me to ask you how you want to be addressed?
Anyway, wanted to talk with you about your provocative Fox News website opinion piece, “The War on Men“. As a Man who doesn’t feel particularly Warred Upon, I’m curious as to what sort of thing you might be talking about. Certainly there’s been lots of talk about a “War on Women” from the Right, so is this that sort of thing? Let’s find out.
The battle of the sexes is alive and well.
Really?
According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.
Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.
Sounds like a “difference of opinion of the sexes.” Why is this a “battle”?
(Since you didn’t link to it, the study from Pew is here.)
Also, it sounds like the woman/man ratio for this used to be 28/35, and now it’s 37/29. Was it a “battle of the sexes” when women were the same amount less interested in marriage as “one of the most important things in their lives” as men are now, and vice-versa?
Also, women being more interested in marriage than men? Inconceivable! I mean, I’ve never heard of an era when women were striving to get men to propose to them, and men were feeling more interested in feeling footloose and fancy-free! Imagine!
And, in either case, it’s roughly a third of each gender feels that way. Is that really such a difference?
And I note that “modern” (18-34) men considered being a good parent and having a high-paying job/career as less important than women, too. Maybe they’re just slackers about everything.
Might it also be that, as marriage has declined in both absolute numbers and been entered into later, that men are simply growing more comfortable in their 18-34 ages at being bachelors than used to be the case?
So what is behind that that change in answers? Oh, wait — I’ll bet you’re going to tell us.
Ah, for the Good Old Days when there were plenty of good (read: marriageable) men!
The so-called dearth of good men (read: marriageable men) …
The only “good” men are “marriageable” men?
… has been a hot subject in the media as of late.
Not in media I’ve been reading.
Of course, the “dearth of good/marriageable men” has been a hot subject in (some) media and (some) circles for, well, forever. “All the good men are taken” is a lament as old as the written word, and the addendum “… or gay” has been au courant since before 1997.
Much of the coverage …
Somewhere.
… has been in response to the fact that for the first time in history, women have become the majority of the U.S. workforce.
Because women have been working more but, more importantly to the “balance,” men’s jobs were more likely to get cut during the Great Recession, due to the sorts of industries they work in.
They’re also getting most of the college degrees.
For a variety of reasons as well (including that same “nature of jobs” one).
The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women.
Why is this a problem?
As the author of three books on the American family and its intersection with pop culture, …
“Someone thought I wrote well enough, and my ideas were popular enough, to get three of my books published.”
Those books are (in case anyone wonders about where you’re coming at with this particular article): The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say (with Phyllis Schlafly), 7 Myths of Working Mothers: Why Children and (Most) Careers Just Don’t Mix, and the coming-soon How to Choose a Husband: And Make Peace With Marriage.
Al Bundy wishes he were part of this subculture still
… I’ve spent thirteen years examining social agendas as they pertain to sex, parenting, and gender roles. During this time, I’ve spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.
Women aren’t women anymore.
So there’s a nebulous “subculture of men” who don’t care for modern women. Now there’s an attitude we’ve never heard before.
How large actually is this subculture, out of curiosity, since I don’t see it anywhere in the “culture of men” that I associate with?
To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact.
That’s a broad generalization, but I’m willing to accept that. The introduction of legal and woman-centric contraception is probably the most profound and obvious trigger for change, since it substantially freed women from pregnancy, as well as freeing both genders (especially women) from associating (as much) sexual activity with marriage, which meant marriage could be a matter of equals between women and men.
Ah, but therein lies the problem!
Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.
Wait, I thought men had been made all unmanly and demasculinized by all the rough, crude, competitive women who objected to being slapped around and kept silent? Wasn’t that the previous conservative meme? Now you tell me that men haven’t changed?
Also, wait — was the Sexual Revolution just about women? Really?
Also, wait — if women have changed and men haven’t, why is this a “War on Men”?
It's all about Angry Women! Angry, I tell you!
In a nutshell, women are angry.
I don’t notice women being angry, or any more so than men.
They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly.
Bless their little unknowing hearts.
(By the way, Suzanne, should that be “they” or “we”? Are you defensive, though often unknowingly?)
That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy.
Probably by people who refer to “battle of the sexes” a lot.
The Battle for Pedestals
Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.
Women have all of our pedestals! Greedy, greedy, women!
It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes.
Because, of course, in the Good Old Days, women and men were always treated as being fair and equal parts good and bad.
By the way, I seem to have a relationship with a woman. While it is true that she is good (“and when she’s bad, she’s better!”), I don’t get the sense that she treats me as “bad.”
In fact, as long as we’re waving around unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence, I know a number of couples. I don’t see an authentic “women good / men bad” dynamic at work there.
It's a lot easier to feel marriageable if you get to be in charge of stuff
I can certainly believe, though, that someone, of either gender, who thinks that the opposite gender is by nature cruel and dominating and vain and pedestal-stealing is likely not to be interested in marrying one of them, unless they have, say, some societal and/or legal dominance that allows them to compensate that other gender’s natural “bad” inclinations. Fortunately, we’d never tolerate such a social/legal system, right?
Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.
Because in the Good Old Days, men were never blamed with “love goes awry.” And, certainly, today, women are never blamed.
Um, how large is this subculture you’re extrapolating from again, Suzanne?
But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault?
Well, that certainly sounds more fair! Let’s not stand for blanket statements about men! Make them about women, instead!
You’ll never hear that in the media.
Yes, there are no sexist diatribes in modern American media that blame women for their part of the “battle of the sexes.” Indeed, there never were! I’m sure of it!
All the articles and books (and television programs, for that matter) put women front and center, while men and children sit in the back seat.
It's all been downhill for Marriageable Men since this gal took over
Yes, women are in control of everything! They own all the pedestals! They are in the driver’s seat! They are in charge of everything! They dominate corporate management, the seats of government, the police and military! They run all the media! They earn more than men, they commit sexual assault with impunity against men, and they spent the last election cycle talking about how all those “slutty” men just wanted hand-outs from taxpayers to fund their irresponsible sexual habits! Outrageous!
But after decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.
Well, at least the “subculture of men” you’re talking about is “tired” of unhappy women blaming them for their unhappiness. Those darned women ought to be happy, and happy to be happy, with whatever they get. And give back that pedestal!
Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off.
Oh, well, as long as (that subculture of men) isn’t threatened, just pissed off, we should definitely change things to make them, um, unpissed. Because clearly the pissing off is women’s fault. “Madge, shut up and get me a brewski!”
Wait, I thought the problem wasn’t that men are pissed off, but that women are “angry” and (unknowingly) “defensive” (something about Pedestal Envy). Perhaps, if men and women are both angry, they need to get together and talk about it, like adults. Surely that’s the mature and wise thing to do. You’re not going to suggest, Suzanne, that, oh, women should just swallow their “anger”, and surrender to those “pissed-off” men, are you? (SPOILER: You are.)
It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.
Real Man being battled upon by Not-Real-Women trying to take his job
Evil, wicked, naughty modern women, taking all those jobs so that men are unable to bring home the bacon! It’s not just wrong, it’s un-DNAish! It’s an insult to men and what men really want.
It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.
Aha! See! Men get theirs back by having consequence-free sex. No wonder they don’t want to get married! Wait, I thought that was bad thing for men that was pissing them off.
No, wait, I thought men didn’t want to get married because feminist women are shrews who are taking their jobs and their pedestals. So … I guess … that means they get to have angry sex whenever they want! And it’s all women’s fault!
(Apparently women having sex “at hello” doesn’t “serve” them as well as men. Also, for some reason, it causes them to have their boyfriends live with them with no responsibilities whatsoever. Sounds like those women are kinda dumb.)
It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.
Poor women. By stealing sex, jobs, and pedestals, they’ve left themselves miserable! Plus, those women have magically become “not women”, so no wonder they can’t find a “man”!
Real Women -- Wives and Mothers Supporting Their Probably Dead Husbands
Yes, if only a big strong Real Man could come along, with a well-paying factory job and a fedora and a regular bowling night, and take nurturing care of them. Then those not-women could give up all that “career” and “respect” and “sex” thing and reach true, “balanced” fulfillment as Real Women, i.e., wives and mothers, as God intended.
So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, …
Wait, I thought we were talking about an (unquantified) “subculture.” Now it’s “en masse”? Eep!
… women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.
It’s all your fault, women! Er, not-women! Uh, pedestal-stealing feminist shrews!
Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around.
But using their womanly power is what caused them to become not-women in the first place!
All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
Ah … it’s not in their power, it’s in their giving up power — surrendering …. If they just stopped struggling, if they laid back and thought of pedestals, if they just let their Real Womanhood through, then all would once again be right and just and manly and the two sexes would live in peace and harmony and fulfillment and complementary equality and two chickens in every pot once again, like they used to in the Good Old Days.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.
By which I think you mean, Suzanne, “If they do, then the subculture of men who doesn’t like women who behave as women do today will like those women and will be more interested in marrying them.” Which, um, makes sense, in terms of tautologies.
June Cleaver, Real Woman
Not that you’ve actually demonstrated that particular subculture of men really needs or deserves to have its interests catered to, or that marriage to such men is what (average) women really want (I’m sure that some do), or that this is more than mere anecdotal bloviating from a writer whose ideological goal is to return to the yesteryear of June Cleaver when everyone was happy and the sexes didn’t battle and nobody had to be concerned about men and women being unable to find compatible mates of their choice.
Nor do I feel particularly warred upon, even after reading your essay, Suzanne. I don’t see a “War on Men.” I do see more blaming of women for the problems of (some) men who, as you say, haven’t changed. That seems to constitute a “battle” or “war” from your perspective, Suzanne. Me, it just makes me think you’re a dolt. And, from a liberated perspective, I’d say that to any man who wrote the same thing.
I'm not sure this is precisely how I would pass this kind of info on if I were a family therapist, etc., but there's a lot of truth here.
Embedded Link
The 5 Most Obnoxious Ways People Screw Up Apologies
Apologizing is admitting that you made a mistake and implies that you won’t do it again. But some people can’t even get through the ‘sorry’ before screwing up again, creating a perpetual loop powered …
Richard Land the president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Not surprisingly, he has some traditionally conservative viewpoints on marriage, which he’s lately put together in a “modest proposal” of disingenuity and prejudice at the Christian Post (which he is, not coincidentally, the Executive Editor): What Relationships Should Be Called Marriage: A Modest Proposal:
The issue of whether Americans should approve “same-sex” marriage …
Aaaaand, we’re off and running with “scare quotes”.
… continues to be debated heatedly in the 2012 election cycle. President Obama has “evolved” on the issue …
Aaaaand, more scare quotes. Minor credit because it was a quotation, but “evolve” is also a Baptist do whistle word.
to the place where he supports “same-sex” marriage, making no distinction between the time-honored institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman and a relationship between two people of the same sex.
Or, perhaps seeing the institution as something not definitively tied to gender as much as to other attributes.
The issue emerged recently in a September 20th debate in the U.S. senatorial contest in Virginia between George Allen (R) and Tim Kaine (D). Former Governor Kaine, when asked about the issue, couched his answer in terms of civil rights and equality, stating “that relationships should be treated equally.”
Equivalent relationships should be treated equally. The question, of course, is what are the fundamental attributes that constitute “equivalent.”
Marriage has been defined in Western civilization for at least two millennia now as being a sexual relationship between one man and one woman. Christianity has defined it so historically, most often coupling it with life-long permanence and monogamy. As an Evangelical Christian, I certainly embrace that definition.
And here we come to a core problem with this entire debate: lack of clarity of terms and historical precedent.
Marriage has been defined, in Western civilization for at least two millennia …
As a way for two (usually) people who love each other to commit to that love in fidelity. (Relatively modern, but what most people think of as marriage these days … and gender blends only come into it when someone raises the question.)
A way to ensure sexual fidelity to avoid sexual sin.
A way to ensure sexual fidelity to avoid debates of paternal lineage and, thus, inheritance. (This has been the biggie in Western history.)
A way to establish inter-family ties and political bonds. (See: royal marriages)
A way to establish a home for children.
Though most of these have had the trappings of one-man-one-woman (occasional Western experiments like Mormonism notwithstanding), the fundamental functions don’t actually rely on gender, but on the relationship established.
And, of course, that ignores the fact that “Western civilization” (not to mention “Christianity”) are not universals, and have no more objective standing than any other social configuration around the globe across space and time.
However, how do we deal with those who would choose to extend some of the legal privileges our society has accorded marriage to same-sex relationships without shattering the definition of marriage …
I suppose you could have a rational, intelligent discussion about what “marriage” is, about what those legal privileges are, why they are associated with marriage, etc.
… or discriminating against people outside the heterosexual definition of marriage?
I suppose you could … um, what?
(This is the intro to an interesting line of argument from Land. Stay tuned.)
How do we protect society against those who would extend the special status of marriage to homosexual, lesbian or polygamous relationships?
What makes you think you need to protect society from them?
And why do you lump polygamy with monogamous marriage?
How do we protect time-honored titles, like “husband” and “wife,” from being attacked as homophobic or sexist terms to be replaced by spouse #1 and spouse #2 or “Mom” and “Dad” from being reduced legally to caregiver #1 and caregiver #2?
Well, you certainly don’t do so by insisting that those titles should only be used in certain, defined-by-you, relationships, and thus cannot be used by others.
Instead, one way is to accept and include others into those titles.
Such legal assaults …
Ooooh. Sounds violent.
… on these time-honored family terms seem inevitable if “same-sex” marriage becomes equal with heterosexual marriage.
Scare quotes!
Also … why? I know gay couples who refer to a “husband” or “wife” or plurals, depending on what they mean to those people. The presupposition that those titles only apply to a given gender is actually part of an argument that they have a meaning beyond gender — that husband doesn’t just mean the male spouse, but has certain objective, intrinsic roles that are different from those of wife.
If that’s what you really mean, Richard, then say so.
Ditto for “Mom” and “Dad”, which seem even less vulnerable to social trends than you think, Richard. “Heather Has Two Moms” … nobody’s arguing that a female parent/guardian of a child should be referred to as “Caregiver”. It may mean that formal forms that get filled out at the beginning of the school year need to use the term, but socially and familialy, I suspect “Mom” and “Dad” will continue to survive.
(And, if they don’t, as words — so what? What’s more important is the role being played than the nomenclature — which is why we don’t mind that we don’t use the terms mater and pater any more, either.)
I propose that as Americans we declare heterosexual marriage as the only relationship in our society that is to be defined by its sexual nature and that it will continue to be defined as a legal relationship between one man and one woman consummated by sexual intercourse.
Well. Isn’t that interesting? I haven’t heard of marriage being defined as “consummated by sexual intercourse” since history classes about kings and queens. I suppose it’s been used as grounds for divorce (or annulment), but in general I don’t know many people who don’t consider themselves married until they’ve had sexual intercourse under certain legal grounds. Especially given the statistics (for better or worse) about couples who “consummate” their relationship long before they get some sort of legal (let alone religious) blessing.
Of course, that begs the issue of why. Why should “heterosexual marriage” be “the only relationship in our society that is to be defined by its sexual nature”? So far, the only harm described by you, Richard, is that some government forms might have to have labels changed.
This obsession with sex seems, frankly, kind of unhealthy.
If two men or two women are living together in a relationship and they want to ask the state legislature in their state to grant some of the special legal privileges accorded marriage to their relationship the state legislature should respond in the following fashion: “We will consider your request, but the sexual nature of your relationship will be irrelevant to our discussions because marriage is the only relationship in our society that is defined by its sexual nature. Why should other people who are living in committed relationships that do not involve sexual activity be discriminated against or left out?”
In other words, the state legislature would not discriminate against two maiden or widowed sisters who were living together or a mother and a devoted son or daughter who were living together in a platonic relationship. Why should such households and relationships be left behind when legal privileges and recognition are being passed out just because they are not in a sexual relationship?
Um … what?
So Land’s “modest proposal” seems to be, “We will only consider sexual activity for heterosexual relationships. [Because considering it for other relationships is too icky.] Therefore, we cannot give homosexual couples ‘special’ rights and privileges because that would be unfair to other couples who are living together who aren’t getting such ‘special’ rights and privileges.”
Huh.
A few thoughts on how wrong this is.
First off, it handwaves the whole subject of why sexual activity should only be considered in a heterosexual relationship. It’s sort of DADT writ large and Queen Victoria refusing to believe that two women could possibly do or feel such things. The sole distinction in heterosexual relationships, as a generalized whole, is that the have the possibility of creating children.
Of course, individuals in homosexual relationships can have children, and the couple can raise them as a family. But Land chooses to ignore this.
And, of course, some heterosexual relationships cannot have children, but Land still chooses to recognize them as sexual relationships.
And, of course, some of those “maiden or widowed” women who were “living together” historically were, in fact, engaged in sexual relationships that were simply not publicly acknowledged.
Further, there are, in fact, legal and legislative proposals and laws that encompass non-sexual relationships as couples that ought to be able to share in at least some of the legal rights of married couples, as to benefits, and visitation, and inheritance, and so forth. Land appears to be unaware of this, but it’s out there. And if two people who care for each other choose to pool their lives together, platonic or not, why should the law treat them as substantively different from two folks who are having legally registered (heterosexual) sex?
If the peoples’ elected representatives in the various states were to undertake such legislation, it would certainly do much to protect marriage as the unique institution that it is in our society, while according all other relationships that equality that former Governor Kaine so desires.
Except, of course, Land’s belief is that the result would be heterosexual (sex) marriage über alles, with any other relationships arbitrarily relegated to second-class ones, whereas the reality is that such legislation might instead raise other committed emotional and financial relationships to the same level of heterosexual (sex) marriage. Which, I suspect, is not what Land intends.
Granted, I can't read that word on its own without thinking of Peter Cook in The Princess Bride … that said …
I love my wife. Somehow, someway, despite all odds, despite all all warnings from the Far Right … my marriage doesn't feel any way lessened, confused, unholy, or damaged by the President of the United States saying that he believes that gays should be able to marry.
And if anyone's does — I suggest, courteously, that there's something wrong with their understanding of marriage.
Our Poster in support of marriage equality. Go to diy.despair.com to make your own! Let's get a bunch of them out there with different slogans.
Suggestions include; "You can't make a straight marriage any straighter by denying civil rights to your gay neighbor". Or "It's a civil right, not a plumbing exercise".
I didn’t blog about it yesterday, since (a) we were really busy hosting a big soiree and (b) I was still under the weather. But … it’s not too late, right?
So … 17 years ago today (er, yesterday), the most wonderful woman in the world decided to settle for me. (She tells the story differently, but she’s very polite that way.) We had a lovely wedding at All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, and then we headed off into the sunset sunrise to Colorado, where we’ve been since.
Life with Margie has been … profoundly neat. Friend, helper, confidante, cook, lover, fellowgeek … I remain amazed at how lucky I’ve been. We remain deeply in love, despite a house and a kid and the joys of two demanding jobs. And I look forward to at least seventeen years more. And maybe another seventeen after that, too.
We’ll probably do something together next weekend (illness, etc., interrupting this past weekend), but I did gift her with a commitment to some household chores over the next year, and a cute coffee mug with bunnies on it. Not a lot — but nothing I could give her would pay her back a fraction of all she’s given me, and continues to.
It would be very difficult to realize that you were not "compatible" with your current spouse in a very deep, profound way — e.g., in realizing (or accepting) that you're gay. No matter how you would deal with the situation, it would not be easy. Indeed, I suspect that, more than other sorts of marital breakups, it would be a lot harder, with the potential for a lot more heartbreak on all sides.
Which is where the "it would be difficult" part of the equation would encompass the other half of the relationship, the straight spouse. I can't imagine how that would feel. It would have all the "normal" trauma of a spouse leaving you, but with additional baggage of "Should I have known? Did I know? What will people say? " — perhaps combined with wanting to be happy for the ex finding a profound key to their own happiness, or feeling particularly betrayed or feeling a failure if you see homosexuality as something awful.
It's good to hear that there is an organization out there specifically dedicated to helping such spouses left behind.
Perhaps, in a world were homosexuality mustn't be kept a deep, dark, shameful secret, these sorts of breakups will be less common — and, when they happen, they won't be so uniquely traumatic. One can hope. #ddtb
On Our Radar – The Straight Spouse Network
The Straight Spouse Network helps you when your wife tells you over breakfast that she is in love with another woman, and she is moving her in and you out.
Congratulations to Mary and Stan on their selling of their condo and paperwork signage on purchase a house. It's been fascinating listening to their tales of house hunting (and living in a fishbowl), and I'm glad they're moving on to a new chapter. #ddtb
