Seattlest Pix 09Nov24
Tuesdays are Muppet Days
Seattle to Remain Famous for Coffee and Rain
Thanksgiving Pairing Suggestion: Dessert Isn't Just a Meal
Dance Dance Party Party Back in Session
As of this morning, queer couples in the state of Washington have about three new rights, which include, but are not limited to:
1. The right to spend time together.
2. The right to talk to each other's doctor.
3. The right to call each other "partner."
Whoopdeedoo. We're not as excited about the new domestic partnership law that goes into effect today, as we are that, when you sign up, you get a wallet-sized, laminated certificate stating your partnership exists. You know, for those times when people say, "But you don't look gay!"
But seriously, folks, it is awful sweet of our state government to give us some rights that our straight brothers and sisters have had for years. According to Seattle Times:
The law gives gay and lesbian couples some of the rights granted to married couples, including the right to visit a partner in the hospital, inherit a partner's property without a will and make funeral arrangements.
We'll explain very quickly, for the haters, why this is good. There are over a hundred-something rights a man and a woman get from each other when they sign a license stating they are now "married." It's not just about saying vows and being in a church. There are rights. In order to get these same rights, queer couples have to sign a series of contracts and go through legal hoo-hah, pay fees, jump through fiery hoops, swim across the English Channel, and then maybe they can get some sort of semblance of something that sort of maybe looks, on paper, like the same rights. But die unexpectedly, and your partner can lose it all in taxes. It is not, though our ultra-conservative brother-in-law may think otherwise, a matter of signing a Power of Attorney contract.
If you have kids, in most places, forget it.
But now, in response to more ballsy states like New Jersey and Oregon (since when is Oregon ballsier than us, y'all?), Washington is granting us a few new rights. It's not perfect, but we'll take it. Our queerer peers may hate us for saying it, but we're happy taking things in stride and accepting the "incremental [movement] toward full marriage." We respect the political process and understand these things take baby steps sometimes.
The whole inherit-everything-without-a-will thing is pretty huge. Seattlest can say this because our parents are lovely people who could hardly be described as pushy, annoying and homophobic, but the last time you want your pushy, annoying, homophobic parents demoralizing your partner is once you've unexpectedly died in a car accident, by sniper fire, after being attacked by a poisonous snake while on safari in Africa. It can be devastating enough to deal with tragedy and the loss of your partner without then also having to deal with an onslaught of homophobia in the same breath.
So we applaud these new rights, even if there's only three of them.
And in response to this guy:
"I'm disappointed and I don't think it should be happening," said Randall, who considers the law a steppingstone to gay marriage. "I think it deteriorates society. Over time it takes away from what is the most important cornerstone of society, and that's marriage between a man and woman."
We say, when marriage between a man and a woman has usurped peace, liberty, the Golden Rule, education, religious freedom and equal protection under the law for all people, for the place of "the most important cornerstone of society," there's something seriously wrong that needs fixing.
photo courtesy Seattlest Flickr pool
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"It can be devastating enough to deal with tragedy and the loss of your partner without then also having to deal with an onslaught of homophobia in the same breath."
- Wait.... Gay people love each other?!
Where was I during all of this? I thought all the gays did was destroy society. You know, since the divorce rate was higher in the 1950's and 1960's than in the 1990's.
The whole "degradation of society and marriage" line is such bullshit. I heard an interesting lecture on NPR a few weeks back down in Forest Grove, OR (there's that darn 4.5 MM state again). It was about how marriage actually deteriorated more when two things happened, 1) we "gave" women rights and 2) when we started encourage marriage for love.
Look: Divorce is going to be rampant when people who are stupid marry. I, personally, don't really believe most people should ever marry; enter into a long term "love-contract" (essentially like marriage but without the whole "forever" deal), yes. But life-long? So many things can change.
And interesting little tid bit to the Bible-thumping Conservatives: Guess where the highest rate of pre-marital teen pregnancy is? The Bible Belt. And most of those lil' ladies is white.
I love the argument that marriage has degraded because of the feminist movement and, consequently, men "granting" women rights. Brilliant.
What's funnier is that a lecturer would mention the "granting" of women's rights and the evolution of the concept of "romantic love" (and marriage because of it) as if they happened around the same time. That's almost as silly as claiming marriage was created by the church.
No. I must have misrepresented her lecture. It was actually quite good. She never claimed they happened at the same time. Not at all. And it she never used the term "granting" women rights. That was a tounge-and-cheek jab at the "Right Wing."
Essentially, what she was saying was that when the roles changed in marriage to an equal relationship, that the institution of marriage weakened. Which is true. But she was quick to add and repeat that while it weakened the instituation. Both the equality and the "true love" alterations was a great improvement to the relationship.
Her basic point was that marriage has changed so much over the last 200 years, more than it has in the millenniums before, that we have to adapt our view of the institution and how we interact with marriage and within marriage. Including the primitive mindset of marriage being between man and woman.
Hell, when people started marrying for love, everyone freaked out saying that it would ruin society and marriage.
That was her point, and mine. Things change. Marriage hasn't always been the way we know it now, and has actually changed quite a bit over a relatively short period of time.
Here's the link and I truly encourage people who are interested to listen. I don't really do it much justice. That's the problem of trying to listen to NPR while riding the 174.
http://kuow.org/defaultProgram.asp?ID=13046
Ah, well that makes a lot more sense. Maybe I just misread your comment :)
I think there are a lot of really interesting (and wonderful) ways that feminism has changed relationships between men and women, and between women and their children (and between women, for that matter). I also agree that the ways the culture of marriage have changed are huge and so important.
It would be so much more beneficial to study that and learn how to guide it rather than discount it as having been "destroyed," searching for a scapegoat to take the flak for the "destruction" of the institution of marriage. But it is so much easier to fear change and take it out on someone else, rather than face it head on with open arms.
I think we've come so far in the ten years since Ellen had to have a parental advisory note on her sitcom because she was holding hands with a woman on television. Then again, I'm obviously preaching to the choir.
Well, as with most movements, feminism has changed the way most people interact and think. Men with men and children as well.
The "destruction" or "degredation" of family and marriage is mostly due to the fact that the rules of the game have changed. The way people from every spectrum of life and every gambit of relationships interact has changed, yet most people go into and about marriages the same as it ever was. Mistake numero uno.