?

Log in

No account? Create an account
bear by san

March 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
bear by san

Well, same-sex weddings have been legal in MA for more than half a day now, and my marriage hasn't gone tits-up yet.

I feel as if I have been lied to about how this would result in the overthrow of society as we know it.

Oh, wait. I have.

Same-sex marriage. Why, it's almost as bad as letting those women have the vote, or those black people drink out of the white folks' fountain.

Now if you'll excuse me, I feel the need to confirm my moral degredation by rereading some queer Elizabethan smut.

Comments

a little decptive, alas. NV's also the easiest state to get a divorce in, and, in fact, people will move here for a month just so they can file paperwork in NV. Our residence requirement is itty bitty.

*g*
Oh, yeah. I know the 'easiest state to get divorced in' part. (Also, easiest to get married in, IIRC.)

I also don't know MA divorce laws.

My actual point is mostly just that I like stats that make a mockery of right wing arguments, even if they're deceptive stats.
Well, if you ever need a quickie divorce, we have crash space. *g*
But MA divorce laws are not especially difficult.
Oh?

Ok, now I feel better about using that stat.
You know the first cause of divorce? Marriage :)
Hm. My marriage is strangely intact as well.

I wonder if, you know, if it just really travels slowly. Whatever "it" is that "they" warned us about.

(sigh)
But didn't you see the sun go dark at 12:01 am when they started issuing marriage licenses?

What's that? It's usually dark at 12:01 am?

Oh.

Never mind.
Oh, holy shit.

I need to set up a cafe press shop so I can sell t-shirts that say "Threat To The Institution Of Heterosexual Marriage."

Except I'm too damned lazy. *g*
I thought about making an icon that said "I'm one of them." But I figured the wrong folks might steal it and use it.
I /really/ want a t-shirt like that. (Though actually, what I want is a "I'm one of them, and I VOTE" shirt.)

Crap.

Now that my wife has marital choices from the breasted half, she wants a divorce.

DAMN THOSE MASSACHSETTIANS!!!

This whole either/or thing is bullshit to begin with..

Hmm.

I know there have been cases of people who wee married, were transgendered, and remained married. How do they handle that?
Would that be the really elementary textbooks? Because I know I've read in a textbook that it doesn't always work out in the more typical XY or XX way.

This reminds me - are you familiar with the colonial Jamestown hermaphrodite case? (Pardon the term, but the 17th century was rather backward.)
Actually as I recall, the text was reporting on "errors," so I guess it was still an old-timer's text.

I know of the Colonial case as a court case that decided what clothing this part-male, part-female person should wear. Since he/she obviously couldn't wear men's clothes, yet wasn't entirely female either - the court arrived at a compromise involving a mix of clothes. It was weird, yet so unsurprising for the time period ... I'm racking my brain to remember where the heck I read this.
Yes, but which queer Elizabethan smut?

---L.
Why, it's almost as bad as letting those women have the vote, or those black people drink out of the white folks' fountain.

I caught an NPR snippet comparing 1950s rhetoric about mixed-race marriages and present-day rhetoric about same-sex marriage, and the two were remarkably similar.
Oh cool.
I wanted to look up racist rhetoric from the 1950s to see how closely it paralleled current anti-gay language.
This was what I found
The key is that what "The Defense of Marriage" is all about is defending their vision of marriage as a mirror of the natural order. That is, a man as the obvious and natural leader of the household, the same way that a (rich white) man is the natural leader of all society. So a household with two men or lacking a man is, by necessity, an unnatural thing.

There was a long article on this posted back when the legislative debate was going on in MA, but it's far enough back that I can't seem to find it now.
They're just afraid that if straight people find out how much fun it is to be queer, everybody will be doing it and the species will die out.

It's for our own good.
what they see as the natural religious order

Ah, that is the problem. What you see as "natural religious", the majority of "them" merely see as "natural". To most them, what is "religious" is, by its very definition, "natural".

The rest don't care about the "religious" angle, they just see their prejudices as universal truth. A convenient universal truth that allows them to lord it over all of creation.

As to the matter of "homosexual clergy", that is not an attack upon "the religious order" in and of itself. What is an attack is when people bring it to the public's attention and point out the hypocrisy of holding both "Marriage of two people of the same gender is wrong." and "Sex between a priest and under aged boy is 'OK'." as working concepts for deciding on what is and is not important enough to spend time and money on.

And yes, I find it very interesting that Massachusetts has been the focal point for both "Gay Marriage" and the "Priest Sexual Abuse Scandal".