Work

Really sorry i missed the soap box, i was working. I worked a lesbian wedding (catering) and it was really a very interesting event. The ladies were very wealthy; an engineer and a graphic designer. They had three adopted children, an older girl and twins. A boy and a girl, about 8 months, they were blonde and they were sooooo cute. If you know me you know i'm obsessed with blonde children, i won't marry anyone unless they can give me little aryan offspring (i didn't mean that in an sort of neo-nazi way). I really enjoyed being a towhead and i want that experience for any puppies i pop out. but i digress. these children were adopted by this same sex couple, and because of the nature of same sex laws in this state and many others the adoption is complicated. Two women cannot adopt a child, but a single woman can. Now if the state is your only enemy that can be remedied by making the other parent a guardian in case of death or whatever. One parent is still the primary guardian. The problem is in the case of an ugly breakup where the primary tries to block the rights of the other. Imagine if Julie Cypher suddenly told Melissa she couldn't see the kids anymore. That would be well within her rights under the law as it is. Along with other survivorship rights, such as debt and estate and living trust decisions, these issues are what really make up the gay marriage/civil union issue. That is the problem with this issue, many people aren't aware what is really at stake. The right has done a good job of convincing people that this is strictly about godliness, and ignored the fact that people are suffering in ways that their lifestyle alone wouldn't earn such a heavy price. As far as civil unions are concerned, i support the equality of marriage, but couldn't object to a civil union clause were it to defer the necessary rights on the concerned parties. The problem with that is that rather than acquiring those rights by one simple action, a long and drawn out fight where every step is a struggle is probably gonna be required. I read a blog in the merc where someone suggested what i had thought all along. The idea is not that gays should be added to the legal scope of marriage, but that the law shouldn't govern any of it. All marriages should be called civil unions under the law, and any religion can confer this status through it's ordained representatives to any parties they think worthy (within the law). It's the only way. Wohoa, tangent anyone... anyway, i have a shitload of projects in my house, not to mention drinking to do whilst i'm on vacation. Btw, maybe there are unicorns.