![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
No on 102
Posted from my private blog.
My views have mellowed a bit since I wrote this though. At the time I was still in shock and angry.
Marriage may be a religious institution that our government should have no say in, but prop 102 is still a nasty and foolish piece of work. Not only does it potentially restrict access to hospital visitation rights, but it also might send a nasty message about the equal worth of relationships.
It seems to me that the whole "procreation" issue is a red herring. Because when I see anybody who's married (even the fundie christian types) when they talk about their spouse and why they married them it's never about how they wanted to fill the Earth with their children. It's about LOVE. They LOVE each other. Ok, not always. My best friend was perfectly willing to cohabitate until his lover got into a serious accident and the hospital paperwork got messy.
This simple fact is at the heart of why I'm suspicious of anything that restricts marriage, even if I'm not really sure how it would fit into my life if I did get married. The ritual aspect always struck me as cool, but being neither monogamous nor possessive, and being annoyed by empty social rituals, I can't see any reason to tie the Knot.
Love is too rare and precious to worry too much over who other people choose to love. That should be a non-issue. Having believed for a long time that I was flat out "incapable of love" (and all the trouble that caused) it baffles me when people pull this kind of shit and assume that others are unfit to be in a relationship.
EDIT: I'm no longer sure how important this is. Mixing up personal lives and politics is often a bad combination. Basing your arguments on what people "might think" is no way to prioritize.
My views have mellowed a bit since I wrote this though. At the time I was still in shock and angry.
Marriage may be a religious institution that our government should have no say in, but prop 102 is still a nasty and foolish piece of work. Not only does it potentially restrict access to hospital visitation rights, but it also might send a nasty message about the equal worth of relationships.
It seems to me that the whole "procreation" issue is a red herring. Because when I see anybody who's married (even the fundie christian types) when they talk about their spouse and why they married them it's never about how they wanted to fill the Earth with their children. It's about LOVE. They LOVE each other. Ok, not always. My best friend was perfectly willing to cohabitate until his lover got into a serious accident and the hospital paperwork got messy.
This simple fact is at the heart of why I'm suspicious of anything that restricts marriage, even if I'm not really sure how it would fit into my life if I did get married. The ritual aspect always struck me as cool, but being neither monogamous nor possessive, and being annoyed by empty social rituals, I can't see any reason to tie the Knot.
Love is too rare and precious to worry too much over who other people choose to love. That should be a non-issue. Having believed for a long time that I was flat out "incapable of love" (and all the trouble that caused) it baffles me when people pull this kind of shit and assume that others are unfit to be in a relationship.
EDIT: I'm no longer sure how important this is. Mixing up personal lives and politics is often a bad combination. Basing your arguments on what people "might think" is no way to prioritize.