The Iowa Supreme Court decision striking down the state's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is the third from a state high court to treat government discrimination against gay people generally as a serious constitutional problem (the other two are the California and Connecticut marriage cases). .... Click to read more ....

I was celebrating that one, too.

And you're not even from Iowa!

It's -really- good to see you, btw. Are you within a thousand miles of any of us?

As for the subject of this thread, well, as we all know, marriage is the foundation of family. What we forget is how profoundly marriage is the legal foundation of family.

Today my ex switched a spot where I checked "divorced" on a form for DD to "not divorced" and then added a note: "Never legally married." It's a matter of the story she tells herself, and the story I tell myself, of course. But the fact of the matter is, indeed, we were never legally married.

And there are many days when I recall something that was written about us after DD's birth was such big news. It was written on a conservative forum, Focus on the Family type stuff. Many hateful negative comments that I let roll off my back. One stuck. "They're just little girls," the writer said. "They're just little girls playing house. I hope they don't hurt themselves or anyone else."

I wasn't playing.

But .... looking back on it. Maybe my ex was.

No I'm not from Iowa, but it made me proud that, even in the heartland, sometimes the rational argument still wins out in court. I think it is significant that this ruling came down in the heartland as opposed to the Northeast or Pacific states. Then just a few days later, Vermont's legislature was able to muster a 2/3 vote to overcome a veto. The question is not if, but when, and how many families are going to be hurt in the meantime.

I was chatting online with a friend of mine from Australia. She's transgender and interested in such issues. She told me, "Hey, breaking news in your country...Iowa just legalized same-sex marriage." So, I found out from an Aussie. I'll have to email you her Vlog on Prop 8's passage.

quote:

I wasn't playing.

But .... looking back on it. Maybe my ex was.

Maybe she was. And maybe she didn't even realize it at the time. I faced a long time ago that my ex probably was more interested in playing grown-up with marriage and all than he was in any of the actual reality of it...and I don't think he knew the difference.

quote:

"They're just little girls," the writer said. "They're just little girls playing house. I hope they don't hurt themselves or anyone else."

Interesting how these types say such things about same-sex couples, while pressuring adolescents to marry (like Bristol Palin), and while ignoring the number of opposite sex marriages who fit the same bill. The former, of course, devalues marriage, but the latter give it meaning. Go figure.

I quote an image by my Vlog friend, "Circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works..." The words in the image were in a circle...infinite, and astute.

I'm in NC, and as of this Wednesday newly unemployed. I'm not sure yet exactly what I'm going to do for my next step. It isn't crucial right now, and my fiance is highly in favor of me taking a "break" for a while. I'm leaning towards going to school full time and finishing my master's. I'm toying with the idea of getting an undergrad in Socioeconomics and going on to specialize in comparative religions. We shall see.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: *Antigone Rising*,

Aha!

New York could follow Vermont's lead.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI....marriage/index.html

quote:

Interesting how these types say such things about same-sex couples, while pressuring adolescents to marry (like Bristol Palin), and while ignoring the number of opposite sex marriages who fit the same bill. The former, of course, devalues marriage, but the latter give it meaning. Go figure.

There isn't much I can do about the heterosexual couples and how they apply the logic to them. I can say, though, that there are same-sex couples who do fit into the description. Folks who hide in the shadows of the fact that their unions aren't legally recognized.

And I recognize that I still live in that shadow, only today it's not a marriage, it's being a mom that's held in that shadow, and not by the state, but by DD's other mom. I have become immensely tired of this shadowy state and the fear (not mine) of commitment it arises from.

The shadow exists because of how larger society creates our space. The fact that we use it is an ugly part of the GLBTI community, one that we rarely admit to anyone because we are so afraid that it will be used against us by the larger community that doesn't want us to have rights in the first place.

It's similar to the ugly reality that I am far from unique in lesbian couples. In fact, I'm frankly lucky, because I still see my kid on a regular basis and have a custody agreement that helps me make sure I can see here. There are too many who don't see their kids, who have no rights, who live in even more fear than I do.

Sure, we can point the finger at right-wing commentators whose logic is flawed. I prefer to focus on areas where I can actually talk to people who are on "my" side about things we need to do to make life better for all of us, no matter what the larger community has to say.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Just J_SYMC,

Agreeing completely.

Good comparison, A, about how girls are treated when it comes to traditional marriages. Really good point.

J - you might want to re-read and edit a certain name/speculation on sanity

P

Heh. Thansk P. I got carried away.

California's Prop 8 upheld BUT "cut to the bone"

P