Today, I love you. Yes, it’s true, I love you every day. But today, especially. I am devoted to you. Yes, you. I will always make myself available. I will always answer the phone in the middle of the night. I will always call you back as soon I get out of class. I will listen, or I will talk, or I will sit with you in silence. I will tell you what you need to hear, I will tell you what you want to hear, or I will tell you what I think. I will cry with you, or I will cry for you, or I will do my best not to cry. I will hold you until you don’t need to be held any longer. I will be the person you need. Today, tonight, tomorrow, every day, every night, every tomorrow. Simultaneously, I already know your story and am eager to know your story. And why am I telling you this today? I just had a feeling you might have forgotten.
Why I disagree.
A lot of people, some of them celebrities, have put their own marriages on hold until there is marriage equality in this country. While these couples are considered honorable and activist, I can't help but disagree completely.
The fight for marriage equality is being fought so that everyone in this country has the legal right to marry the person they love, regardless of either partner's sex. People want to get married. People want the symbol of marriage, they want the legal protections of marriage, they want the chance to celebrate their relationships with their friends and families.
When you declare that you will not do the same until they can, you dangle marriage rights in their faces. You say, "I can have what you want, and am going to choose not to have it." You say, I am going to stay in this limbo state of lifetime commitment without the legal status. You are doing by choice what they have had done to them by force.
I understand that the idea is solidarity. But, for me, this aligns exactly with the idea that the person who can read and does not has nothing more than the person who cannot read at all.
It seems to me that the best choice here is for heterosexual couples who love each other to get married, and then fight for the rights of their friends and neighbors. Heterosexism does not end with the putting on hold of heterosexual marriage. But the value and importance of marriage does. Getting married isn't on my upcoming agenda or anything, but if it was, I would not be waiting. I would be so grateful for the right to marry the person I love, and want to legally recognize it, and then pick back up the fight.
What do you think?
The fight for marriage equality is being fought so that everyone in this country has the legal right to marry the person they love, regardless of either partner's sex. People want to get married. People want the symbol of marriage, they want the legal protections of marriage, they want the chance to celebrate their relationships with their friends and families.
When you declare that you will not do the same until they can, you dangle marriage rights in their faces. You say, "I can have what you want, and am going to choose not to have it." You say, I am going to stay in this limbo state of lifetime commitment without the legal status. You are doing by choice what they have had done to them by force.
I understand that the idea is solidarity. But, for me, this aligns exactly with the idea that the person who can read and does not has nothing more than the person who cannot read at all.
It seems to me that the best choice here is for heterosexual couples who love each other to get married, and then fight for the rights of their friends and neighbors. Heterosexism does not end with the putting on hold of heterosexual marriage. But the value and importance of marriage does. Getting married isn't on my upcoming agenda or anything, but if it was, I would not be waiting. I would be so grateful for the right to marry the person I love, and want to legally recognize it, and then pick back up the fight.
What do you think?
Blog For Choice Day 2011
On January 22, 1973, the decision was made in the case of Roe v. Wade, putting reproductive freedom in the hands of mothers. The decision allows women the full control of their pregnancy, up until "viability," which was roughly defined as the time when the baby could live on its own. This is, vaguely, after 24 weeks.The reason this decision changed the world is because we have upheld it. We have upheld this decision for 38 years. In the last 38 years, there have been eight Presidential Administrations, 23 U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and countless threats of appeal.
Roe v. Wade is the classic litmus test during all campaigns and nomination processes. Each time a pro-lifer takes office, we wait with bated breath to see if the issue will be raised during his tenure. We seem fixated on this one piece of legislation. For one-issue voters, this is most often their one issue. And yet, Roe v. Wade prevails.
Today, we can celebrate 38 years of freedom of choice. We can celebrate 38 years of reasonable people upholding a reasonable decision.
But this is in the wake of the election of a slough of anti-choice Republicans across the nation. Our House of Representatives and Senate are teeming with legislators who want to revoke our right to choose. This is why, 38 years later, it remains critical that we remain vocal. Though we have been blessed with 38 years of choice, we cannot assume there will be 38 more.
If choice is an issue about which you are passionate, contact your representatives. Contribute to candidates and organizations that will continue to uphold Roe v. Wade, and continue the fight for your rights and the rights of women you love.
www.naral.org
www.emilyslist.org
www.democrats.org
www.prochoice.org
www.plannedparenthood.org