thoreau

Dave and I went to the protest this morning - and listened to an hour or so of speakers - then went to our hair guy to get our hairs cut (he announced he's closing shop - so we'll be on the lookout for an inexpensive new hair guy) - then we did the stairwalk around Upper Market (Vulcan/Saturn steps and a bunch of smaller hidden ones we didn't know were there.) Then we came home and I got to work in the kitchen and made a great fajita dinner for our friends David and Bob. It was awesome to catch up with them (they've fallen on some rough economic times - damn economy!) and then we headed out to the new Bond movie - it rather bland - just a thin plot connecting action sequences. (and the "theme song" was worse than Madonna's die another day - and thats saying something) BUT - they highlight of the night was the new Star Trek movie trailer - it looks to be a awesome reboot of the story. I'm excited - and it was fun that the audience clapped after the trailer finished. (Take a peek here on youtube before it goes bye bye) so - good protests - good excercise - good friends - and a good trailer. :) now for Velcrosnuggle^tm with David. :) its 1230am! yikes!

I had a long conversation with my Mom this morning about the election. First off - just two years ago - this conversation would not have happened. My Mom, due to 35 some odd years married to my Dad - - is extremely conservative politically. While my Dad was alive - politics was screaming match material. My Dad was very much a man of absolutes - that sort of "your with us or your against us" kind of position that makes me just so angry. But since my Dad's passing away - my Mom has started to form a more balanced (yet clearly conservative view) of the world and more importantly of politics. When I was involved in politics in Idaho - her position was always for my safety - and was always very careful not to discuss the issues - particularly when it came to gay rights. so - it was slowly and gently - that I asked to talk to her this morning about gay marriage. After we talked about the candlelight vigil, the march up Market on Thursday - the big protests all over the country yesterday,, and I talked her through the big louds sighs - (she hates confrontation more than anyone I know - and often will avoid it all costs - - )

This morning's conversation started off very gently - because a) I didn't want to gloat about Obama's victory too much - - and b) I was weary of getting in a debate on gay marriage. Surprisingly - my Mom took a very interesting point of view. She says that the word - marriage - is covered with too much religious dogma - and that gays wanting "marriage" was upsetting to her. (don't get your cockles up - read the whole post first) She said she believed that gay couples deserve the same civil rights that straight people have - but - she said that marriage as a "term" was too loaded - and that if federal legislation passed allowing for civil partnership - that she'd support that - but that asking people of her generation (65+) to accept the use of the term marriage between gay people was a very difficult step for her. I responded with the usual talking points - about "should couples who don't have children then not be married?" - and she responded that a straight couple without children - at least has the biological ability to have a child together - where a gay couple does not. (strictly speaking - not affording things like adoption, sperm/egg donation, etc.) and she was very matter of fact - that she would never support extended the 'term' marriage to gay people - but she believes that an extension of all civil rights that straight couples enjoy - should be extended to gay couples as a matter of whats right. She supported the position in the Chronicle (which apparently she read to see what was happening in my home city) - this article suggests "...This could be accomplished by limiting the state of California prospectively to the issuance of civil unions for all couples, rather than marriage licenses, leaving marriage, which in origin is predominantly a religious concept and not the real business of the state, to religion..."

So my Mom supports the idea (which I believe

nudewoody was one of the first I read who agree) that the state should get out of the marriage business completely. and ONLY do civil unions for everyone. It was at times a tense conversation - but she really believes - that if they passed a civil unions bill at the federal level - that teh fight is hardly over - because even that recognition of gay couples by religious conservatives is going to be fought tooth and nail - but that she thinks if the collective american society can separate marriage and the civil union bestowing all of the civil rights (from taxes to estate planning to visitation, etc.) that she sees that as the fairest route of all.

It was a wonderful conversation - what do you think? if marriage as a civil legal term stopped being used - and marriages only happened in churches - but even straight couples in the eye of the government had "civil unions" for the legal/civil rights? If everyone got civil unions - does that seem like a just equal solution? and leave marriage and it's antiquated definition to religious groups?