I came in from hanging up the wash this morning to hear a knock on the door. Bracing myself for the possiblity of being witnessed to or another PTA solicitation, I bravely opened the door and stood there in my shabby chore clothes facing two earnest young women. They started by complimenting me on our attractive entrance, the color of the front door, the flowers, the awnings. It’s a modest and well loved home. Then, “Are you familiar with Proposition 8?”
“Yes. But I always have to re read it to remember how it goes.”
They hand me a card showing happy hetero family’s pictures representing the will of the people. 61% of the people undermined by 4 “SF based judges”, I’m told.
My mind is racing. No I do not support proposition 8. How do I convey that? How do I get their attention as they are trying to win me over to their earnest self righteous simple minded self protective prejudice?
I am a happy hetero married woman. I am even prettier than they are (nod to Kim.KIm) even at two decades older than they. But my happiness lies in living love, or loving all of God’s creation. So I tell them.
I really don’t think we as a people need more laws to tell us who can be married. If two people, regardless of sex or gender want to get married, to stand up before their community, their church and commit to a marriage relationship, that should be their business. I see it as an interference of the state to prevent ministers from performing marriage ceremonies based on state preferences.
“Oh, but it will be forced on our children in the public schools…”
Oooh don’t get me started. This is a family entrenched in public education. And I have to say there are much bigger problems in public education than a few people pushing their opinions about “Heather having two mommies”. Facts are Heather may HAVE two mommies. Or no mommy. Or a grandma, or a foster mom. Heather needs to know she is a good and worthwhile person regardless of who her mommy is. Heather’s teacher needs the support to teach and facilitate Heather’s learning. Ok, that’s a way more complicated issue than I want to go into here.
Back to the matter at hand, marriage and law. In my head I was quickly referencing Erin’s op ed on marriage vs civil union. She sounded quite civil in her presentation that civil union would provide the benefits non hetero couples seek. What do I really think about that? I think the gov’t should keep it’s nose out of people’s business. I thought about my younger daughter’s non gender identified stance against marriage in general. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
I really do see this as people trying to get the state to interfere in other’s personal growth and development. Getting along with one’s spouse can offer tremendous opportunities to expand and grow in loving and cooperation. I got married because I want to learn more about loving. It hasn’t been easy but it is totally worth it. I have the same goal in all my relationships but not the same commitment. We committed to our relationship as long as we both shall love. Each day, I am responsible to check whether I am loving my spouse. I have my ups and downs. We’re going on 30 years now. I feel very fortunate and I don’t want the the state to prohibit anyone from embarking on the adventure of a commited marriage relationship.
Each marriage grows at it’s own rate. Sometimes people grow apart, or grow more fully without each other. A marriage’s success is not due to other people’s relationships. Who marries who is dependent on the parties involved, the individuals and their community/church. We don’t need more laws. There is never a good reason to stop loving and you can’t legislate it.
These two ladies were enjoying expressing their opinion and I complimented them on their involvement in something they cared about. When they left my opinion was still rolling around in my head. Now I’ve spit it out.