Save the Comb! Oh, and the Rest of the Internet Too.

A quick blahg, in honor of the online protests today against SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (the Protect IP Act), two current bills in Congress that will censor what we, the people, can and cannot access on the internet.

Yes, you read that correctly… Anything that a copyright holder deems to be a violation of their copyrighted material can lead to a complete eradication of the website in question without warning or proceeding trial.  It will just disappear.

Yikes.

There is no doubt, people... If passed, this Congress will effectively end the freedom of information on the internet as we know it and we cannot let that happen.

The bills are widely supported by the movie and music industries (which is not too surprising), while they are vehemently opposed by many of the major online sources of information.  The very frightening reality of the issue, as many individuals and corporations, including President Obama, recognize, is that the negative consequences of these bills will reach much further than to those who are intentionally pirating copyrighted materials for financial gain.

Get this… THIS blahg, A Fein Toothed Comb, could be erased from the internet completely because of my proclivity for linking to articles outside of my own page for the sake of enhancing my readers’ knowledge on a particular topic (as I have done all throughout this post).  Unacceptable.

Everyone: SIGN SOMETHING against this horrific attempt to block our freedom of speech! Protect our right to information on the internet! Support the online protests being led by internet giants like Wikipedia and Google!

You know, our freedoms are being challenged far too often by this current Congress and I don’t like it one bit.

In the meantime, I’m going to go backup all of my online writing onto my hard drive.

"Hey You Guys" and Other Male Generics

I have a little bone to pick with the English language regarding male generic terms in the professional world... For example: chairmen, policemen, mailmen, firemen, businessmen, congressmen, etc.  The reality of these titles is that though they once did accurately describe those employed in the positions referred to above, they do not any longer.

I did a little Google experiment to reinforce the point I’m about to make: first I Google image searched “businessmen” (a common umbrella term for all people who work in business) and came up with the image displayed here demonstrating a scene of all men, and many others like it. When I image searched the term “businesspeople”, nearly all of the images looked more like the one posted below, illustrating a much more accurate scene of the current business world which now includes women. (The same is true when I image search firemen vs. firefighters, and policemen vs. police officers.)

These umbrella male-generic terms are outdated and are no longer reflective of the reality of the professional world.  The argument that terms like businessmen and chairmen are meant to include women in this day and age is weak because, quite literally, they do not.  Until we shift the way that we refer to these professions, men will continue to dominate the field, as a self-fulfilling prophecy.  In order to be inclusive of women in professional fields, the language that we use must also include them.

The way we talk is in accordance with the way that we think (and therefore what we expect of ourselves and what others expect of us); and our language is our most powerful tool for change.

While certainly subtle (indeed, likely unnoticed by many), I assert that changing the subconscious use of language is an essential step in the movement towards social equality between men and women.  The language that we use has, what I consider, “a silent impact” on the workplace (and beyond).

Thinking outside of the business world, have you ever noticed that when someone says that a woman is “one of the guys” this is generally understood by both parties to be a compliment of high-esteem.  The person offering this “compliment” usually means that the woman is laid back, easy to talk to, able to speak about compelling topics, and perhaps enjoys a cold beer over a conversation (which, for the record, describes nearly all of the women that I associate with). 

As a side note, while talking about social cues, “you guys” is one of the most common phrases that I hear when referring to a group of people, be it all men, co-ed, or even when addressing a room full of women.

Now, imagine for a moment what would be implied if I were to tell a friend that he was just like “one of the girls”… While this might be intended to say that this man is laid back, easy to talk to, able to speak about compelling topics, sensitive, and thoughtful (which, for the record, describes most of the men that I associate with), more than likely, that man will be quite uncomfortable with the notion, if not outright offended.  He might even feel the need for a cold beer and a football game with the guys to cleanse himself of this ill-gotten "feminine" reputation.

We need to work to move away from the underlying message that to be “masculine” is ideal, and to be “feminine” is inferior, an idea that is constantly reinforced by men, women, and the mass media at large.  One way that we can all do our subtle, yet vital part, is to give regard to the way that we speak and the words that we use to refer to people.

Instead of using spokesman, try using spokesperson; instead of salesman, salesperson; mankind, humankind.  And here’s a real challenge for everyone, instead of “you guys”, try using “you all” (carefully controlling the tendency to let this become “y’all” if that is not a word you are otherwise drawn towards) or even just “everyone”.

When we begin to inundate the professional and social spheres with the use of inclusive language, we can really start to make a change in gender dynamics.  I believe that it is not with malicious intent that anyone uses these generic terms, and it is not with judgment of the ingrained use of language in our society that I write, but instead to introduce the thought of the bigger picture implications every time the opportunity to use more inclusive language arises.

But… Baby, It’s Cold Outside

I really can’t stay (but baby it’s cold outside)

I’ve got to go away (but baby it’s cold outside)

We know the one, this old time duet describes an interaction between two people who are negotiating the next step of their evening and I just can’t resist but to blahg a bit about this classic holiday tune.  Something about this song has irked me through the past several holiday seasons, so here goes…

This song illustrates a situation in which a man is trying his hardest to encourage a woman to stay just a little longer, and the woman duly refuses, raising every reason to leave that she can muster up.  Now, the energy of this song does not strike me as a situation in which the woman does not actually want to stay longer with this man, however, the compulsion to refuse so vehemently, only to ultimately succumb illuminates a much deeper issue in our engrained sexual dynamics.

"But Becky," you say, "it’s an old song and that’s just how it was done back then, it’s not what happens nowadays, and it’s just a song, so what's the big deal?"  

And to that I say... yes, while certainly dated, having been originally introduced to the holiday song scene in 1936, I appreciate that this song is a product of its time, and a depiction of a very “traditional” scene between man and woman.  Why, therefore, am I even bringing this up?

Well, because… what we see and hear in our popular culture, we inevitably think on a subconscious level, and it always deserves a second think-through in order to analyze what these messages mean and how we absorb them.  

(You all will certainly hear more about my views of the power of mass media for positive social change that is currently being irresponsibly used to reinforce negative messages in upcoming blahgs.)

I simply must go (Baby, it's cold outside)

The answer is no (Ooh baby, it's cold outside)

We all have to change the way we communicate about sex so that the true meaning of “no” is understood and agreed upon by all parties. 

Here we have a woman who is socialized to exert her “proper” and “chaste” womanhood by resisting for the sake of appeasing her conscience and her family, as she describes.  Simultaneously, we have a man who has been socialized to recognize this dissent as a predicament of conscience on her part and to assert his “manhood” until she says yes.

While in this particular case, as in many in real life, this is a situation in which the woman initially says no, even though she desires what she refuses, and the man, playing along with this “game”, persists.  It is not difficult to imagine how this problem easily can and often does lead to some genuinely undesired situations and some likely confusion all around.

This is a problem that can hardly be blamed on men, women, or any particular person, but rather, the culture of sexual dynamics that we function within that ultimately contributes to the epidemic of sexual assault in our society.  And even more importantly, it's an issue that negatively impacts each and every one of us, and therefore must be pondered in a very deep way.

Way too many sexual assault situations stem from misunderstanding and lack of communication between the people involved and it’s high time that we make some changes.  With comprehensive sexual health education, and an increased ability to discuss feelings honestly when it comes to sex, we can empower people to engage in healthy and consensual intimacy in their lives.

My point here, as always, is not to ruin this holiday traditional song, but to invite everyone reading this blahg to constantly be thinking critically about the messages that are embedded in our popular culture and mass media outlets. Subtle and rooted as they may be, as in the case with “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”, these messages impact the way we think, undeniably, and must therefore be analyzed.

But baby, it’s cold outside… Yes, and I am an independent and empowered woman and I would love nothing more than to stay and have another drink with you.

(Special shout out to Mom, Dad, Rachael, Shoshi, and Kanoa, who, as a result of these discussions have likely had "Baby, It's Cold Outside" stuck in their heads for the past three straight days. Thanks for being patient!)

Dear President Obama

Dearest President Barack Obama,

I write to you as a staunch supporter and a deep believer in you as a beacon of much needed hope, change, and progress in this country.  From the moment you hit the political sphere, a new wave of passion was awakened throughout the country, rippling through the “Main Streets” all over the world, and unleashing a fervor that we haven’t experienced since the revolutionary decade of the 60s.  Many of us had never felt what it was like to have a political leader who we felt really understood where we are coming from and was ready to stand up for the issues that are so important to us.  I was overwhelmed with love and support for you and your soon-to-be administration.

I feel as strongly today as I did in the summer of 2008 when, as a recent college graduate boiling over with newly achieved knowledge, independence, and a flair for activism, I deployed myself to serve among the thousands and thousands of enthusiastic and inspired foot soldiers of the grassroots movement that was the foundation of your campaign.  We worked for up to 110 hours a week on the streets and knocking on doors speaking emphatically with people about your vision for a progressive future.  

I heard so many beautiful stories of previously disillusioned people who were voting for the first time in their lives believing that a solution to the extraordinarily broken system had finally emerged from the woodwork in response to the plague of the Bush administration.  Better yet, more people than I can even recount disclosed to me that they had voted for the Republican candidate during every election cycle yet, but that you were just too important during this junction in our country to not vote for.

This was a ground-breaking approach to the election process, setting a precedent for the power of the people in choosing our leaders over the power of big money that I can only hope will continue to progress in the future of our electoral system.  I am honored to have been a part of that shift.

(The devastating Supreme Court decision of 2010 that declared corporations deserving of the protection of the first amendment rights, deceivingly known as “Citizens United”, merits a dishonorable mention after that previous statement… an important discussion for a future blahg.)

Together, we enlivened the country to vote at record levels, specifically the historically silent populations of people: racial minorities and young people.  You, Mr. President, inspired us to combine our voices and let them be heard and as a result of that, you are now our one voice.

Through your term so far you’ve fought hard and you’ve accomplished a lot, especially in the face of the horrifyingly obstinate Congress that you’ve had to deal with, and we appreciate it.  As I write, the last of the troops are leaving Iraq, signifying an important promise fulfilled, and a powerful symbol indicating the end of this long, costly, and misguided war.  The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, while not yet perfect, is a critical piece of legislation that will begin to chip away at the astronomically high levels of uninsured people in our country, and has already begun to work as intended.  You fulfilled the long-awaited promise to repeal the 18 year “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of sexual orientation repression in the military, uncovering a deeply rooted issue of institutionalized discrimination.

This list of accomplishments is far from comprehensive, but the point is, I appreciate your work, your convictions, your work ethic, and most importantly, your values.

Now, that said, some of your recent decisions have truly taken me aback.

The decision to not allow emergency contraception (also known as “the morning-after pill, though, this is a misnomer) to be purchased over the counter by young adolescents after many years of research and progressive advocacy for this advancement, is a step backwards, flying in the face of the scientific realities of the issue.  To overrule the FDA on the decision to allow young people the ability to buy emergency contraception in their moment of need in order to prevent a teenage pregnancy is to further block the efforts of the reproductive justice field and thereby neglect the needs of the most vulnerable people for the sake of political gain, not to mention your promised commitment to policy based only on “scientific integrity”.

Another truly frightening recent development is the decision to not enact your power of veto when the National Defense Authorization Act was presented.  This bill represents a violation of human rights of epic proportions.  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States ratified in 1992 very specifically stipulates the protection against arbitrary arrest, and as importantly, the right to due process of the law. 

Though these treaties do not translate directly into domestic law, they are meant to act as a foundation from which our laws are created.  According to these treaties, it is the State’s responsibility to protect and respect these inalienable and indivisible human rights.  This bill is an abhorrent demonstration of the State stripping away these rights.  With this development, we are teetering eerily on the fence between a free state and a police state.  I urge you, with all of my might, to reconsider.

While I detest the reality of the “political game” and the need to act in certain ways in order to ensure reelection, I begrudgingly accept that the current political climate demands this to an extent.  I trust that you and your team are much smarter than me when it comes to ensuring your reelection in 2012 (which I view as an imperative for our political future), but I beg of you to not compromise your values and mine in the process.  We cannot let our country move in this very backwards and counterproductive direction, even for the sake of attracting the “moderate” constituents.

While my support for you is unfaltering, there are many, I fear, who are less certain.  They might not decide to use their vote to support your (totally crazy, ahem) Republican opponent, but they might lose the drive to get out and vote for you in 2012 which we, as a country and as a political party, cannot risk.

Again, I know there must be some kind valid reason for these decisions because I do not believe that they reflect your intellect, your ideals, and your innate respect for humanity, and what that reason is, I do not understand.

I simply cannot impress vehemently enough my view that compromising the support of the liberal base with such extreme legislation will serve us poorly in the upcoming election.

For this reason and so many others, please rethink these decisions and in doing so, remember yourself and the people whom you represent.

President Obama, even though I am less than pleased with some of these developments, I am very proud of others, and I trust that in your second term you will use the political foundation that you’ve been building over the past three years to serve us well and continue to fight for the progressive political change that this country so desperately needs.

For that though, we need to ensure your second term, and for that to happen, we need the support of your liberal base which might prove to be more challenging to achieve this time around than in 2008.  This is not a time (nor is any, but particularly now), to be abandoning the values of your base.

Thank you for your service, your life of public work, and your work towards a better world.  This is the time to use these precious opportunities to show us what you are truly made of: compassion, empathy, progressive values, hope, and CHANGE.

Yours Truly,

A Fein Toothed Comb

P.S. I think that at your core, your values align with those of the Occupy movement, and you might do well to express that.  There is a lot of energy and a lot of support brewing in that arena and your public endorsement would be an extraordinary boost to our important cause.

Occupy the Spaces

“WE THE PEOPLE of the Occupy movement embody and enact a deep democratic awakening with genuine joy and fierce determination.”—The Occupied Wall Street Journal, November 2011, Issue 5

Occupy… what a powerful and poignant word. One that I feel aptly embodies the potency of this global movement by the people, for the people. I really like it.

To me, the Occupy movement, preceded by the Arab Spring, represents a ripple of awakenings of the people, with voices ringing out and echoing around the world. There is no way to ignore us anymore. 

The time that I got to spend with the masses in Zuccotti Park (physically occupying), shadowed by the buildings of Wall Street, was empowering and overwhelming to the point of tears. I felt connection, contemplation, conversation, inspiration, and overall, like I belonged.

As Eve Ensler said in her “Ambiguous Upsparkles from the Heart of the Park” storytelling sessions, when you’re there, and involved with the call and response style communication, you aren’t just hearing the words, you’re truly listening, then repeating, and thereby ingesting the words of your Occupy community, establishing a space of unequivocal solidarity. It’s very powerful stuff.

I recently had the incredible opportunity to hear a panel of Columbia University professors from various fields speak on the matter, a perspective that I had been craving to hear and I am very excited to share with you all reading this blahg. 

The panel was made up of (among others):

Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute and Special Advisor to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

Professor Sachs began by saying that “it’s going to be the millennials who fix this mess, and I think that the Occupy movement is just the beginning”. He explained that our current economic and governmental system is “very unequal and very unfair” and that it got to be this way through unethical and illegal means.  Professor Sachs says that OWS has been successful at changing the level of self-understanding of America, and has opened many people’s eyes. In his opinion, there are four elements of the system that are phenomenally broken right now:

1)     Inequality: The vast proportion of financial gains are within the top 1%, while simultaneously an unacceptable level of financial loss for people in the middle and at the bottom of the economic scale is in motion, rendering this time as the biggest wealth gap since a time that preceded the Great Depression by mere moments.

2)     Impunity: Crimes of immense proportions that impact the majority of the country in devastating ways go unpunished. The 1% breaks laws and fouls social norms without being affected, indeed, in many ways still revered.

3)     Money infuses every element of our politics: Lobbying, campaigning, insider trading in Congress… these are all part of a system that caters only to the self-interested rich and powerful.

4)     The decay of government investments and services: Education, infrastructure, environment, job training, science, climate....… Everything but the military is being GUTTED financially.

Professor Sachs asserts that this problem will not be solved by the Occupy movement alone, but it has certainly opened the world's eyes to the issues.  He suggests that the next generation of politicians, who we need to replace entirely because no incumbents will hold themselves accountable to such an enormous and reformative task, need to win without any campaign contribution that exceeds $99.

Peter Rosenblum, Professor of Human Rights Law, Columbia Law School.

Privatization is undermining human rights and it is the activists who bring to light the issues around the world that have gone unacknowledged for far too long. He implores that we all make an effort to Occupy the Spaces, some that are established for us, such as voting, and in a school setting, student representation to the boards, for example, and some spaces we need to create on our own. Wherever we are, we need use our voices to tell systems, government, and corporations what they can and cannot do. He made reference to the first Supreme Court case in 1978, First National Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti, in which corporations were deemed “people” entitled to the protection of the first amendment. 

“What a huge contradiction” Professor Rosenblum says, “that corporations can be free individuals but are not held accountable for the immense international human rights violations that they are responsible for.”

Bruce Kogut, Professor of Leadership and Ethics, Columbia Business School

We have in front of us a well-organized Republican party with a lot of money. (Uh oh.) Now, what can the democrats do? Professor Kogut stipulates two options:

1      1)      Realign with money. Refocus our politics around who can finance it, like the Republicans. OR… 

        2)   ORGANIZE extremely effectively: advertise, coordinate, and properly use all funding.

Professor Kogut asserted that the whole rhetoric around the 99% was a brilliant marketing framework. The notion integrates all people and breaks down the walls of polarization and the “us and them” mentality to say that we are ALL in this together.

--------------

So we’re off to a solid start.

Not only are we marketing the cause with powerful words and a voluminous online presence, we have been joined by key players throughout the academic, political, and international spheres. 

The Special Rapporteur for the protection of free expression to the United Nations, Frank LaRue, is drafting an official communication to the US government “demanding to know why federal officials are not protecting the rights of Occupy demonstrators whose protests are being disbanded -- sometimes violently -- by local authorities”. LaRue describes that the authorities’ violent response to this peaceful protesting is a mistake and it’s time for the government to defend the people.

President Obama, in an act of indisputable distinction from the current climate of the branches of government, described the unacceptability of the innate inequality that permeates our culture with the current economic theories that favor the 1%. He even alluded to the language of the Occupy movement; while not endorsing it as emphatically as I hope that he will soon, he's getting there. (GOBAMA!)

(Video above: Poet Drew Dellinger--"It's time to rock the nation, rock this occupation".)

We have grasped the attention of the world and we have a unique opportunity upon us that we must not let slip away. No generation has ever been more equipped or able to organize effectively and quickly.

We must Occupy the internet, Occupy the governments, Occupy the spaces, and Occupy our own imaginations to fully realize our potential as a people. We will Occupy with empathy and passion and we will shift the course of history. We are the 99% and our moment is now.

The Black Friday Frenzy: Harnessing The Power of the Masses

I would like to spend some time discussing the fascinating display of human behavior that we witnessed this past Friday, a day of the year known as “Black Friday” (the day that retailers can expect to “get out of the red” and begin to turn a profit) and the day that supposedly officiates the beginning of the Christmas shopping frenzy.

Somehow, corporations and shopping malls have tapped into an element of human nature that drives people to stay up all night long and stampede the stores in droves for this “American tradition” of consumption. Tens of thousands of people line up in front of megastores beginning Wednesday afternoon, many having left their families and friends during the Thanksgiving holiday, in order to get in line for these highly publicized sales on gadgets, goods, and gifts.

Fun fact: Every year the number of people who are shopping, both online and in-stores on Black Friday, the nationally recognized event that takes place the day after Thanksgiving, is growing.  This year, my fellow Americans, we broke records with approximately 75% of the United States, yes, 3 in 4 people, were shopping this past "Black Friday Weekend".  According to the National Retail Federation surveys, the estimated 226 million people (of the entire population of the US: 307 million) is up from 212 million last year. Yikes.

Another fun fact: Approximately 125 million Americans voted in the 2008 presidential election. (That’s of about 231 million people who are 18+ in the United States.)

So what are those retailers doing right? How are they inspiring such immense participation? Most importantly, what can we learn from this to ignite the masses in a similar way (minus the use-of-pepper-spray mentality, one typically saved for peacefully protesting students on the UC campuses, ahem, I digress)  towards productive and socially responsible means? Like voting, perhaps…

I eagerly await the year when Election Day is celebrated with a level of emphatic popular participation comparable to what we see on Black Friday, with people lining around the block for days in advance to cast their vote for what they believe in.

So what is it about Black Friday that so dramatically piques the interest of the American masses? 

Well, for starters, the strategy and preparation that goes into maximizing shopping on Black Friday is quite impressive, both on the part of the shoppers and the retailers alike. The lesson here?  Easy to use, easy to understand preparation materials can be a game-changer when it comes to being involved.  Educating people on the importance of voting and the issues at hand in an approachable and understandable fashion definitely has the potential to rouse the interest of voters and increase informed participation.

(Confession: I don’t read those books that are sent in the mail prior to an election with the dense Arial font writing outlining the details of the things we can vote on in dry and long-winded passages. I mean really, who does? Shhh...)

Bumper sticker by one of my heroes, Ani DiFranco

What else works? 

Having the day off…  If people had to go to work on that Friday, I imagine that not too many stores would be “out of the red” on that infamous day after Thanksgiving, alas, it would be a day like any other. I think that this should be our very first step towards increasing voter participation and sending the message that the voice of the people is so valuable, we’ll shut down the work force to let it be heard. Let’s make it convenient to vote! One sure-fire way to demotivate people to vote is to add it to their already long to-do list after they work an eight hour day in the middle of the week. This needs to be a nationally recognized day off of school and work.

So what more does Black Friday have going for it? 

Well, lots of cool stuff to buy, and we Americans, we certainly love our stuff.  So what of that… Could we incentivize voting somehow in conjunction with increasing knowledge of the election issues? One opinion writer, Matt Miller, of the Washington Post, describes his idea to implement a lottery system in which there was an actual cash prize for a few lucky vote-casting Americans… Certainly an interesting thought, a potentially controversial one, but intriguing, nonetheless.

Here's another thing that Americans love to do as shown by the Black Friday Frenzy… spend money! The same opinion writer, Matt Miller, suggests that every voter ought to be given 50 publicly funded “patriot dollars” to contribute to the candidate of their choice in order to offset private campaign investment.  (Spending someone else’s money… even better!!) Enabling people to be personally invested in the election would be an innovative way to increase participation, not to mention the added benefit of candidates having to appeal to individual voters in all of the states! (Not to worry, I’ll certainly write an aggravated Electoral College spiel in a future blahg sometime.)

All that said, I feel quite strongly that it is possible to invigorate the involvement of our populous in the democratic process. It is not only about making the process more convenient and understandable (though that's essential), most importantly of all it's about redesigning the electoral system overall to make us feel like we, the people, matter. It seems that we have a disillusioned population on our hands, many of us (myself included, at times) among them, and that is a sad state of affairs. Until we are assured that each individual vote truly makes a difference, and that the people we are voting for earnestly care about our day-to-day lives so much that they will ask us for our individual and important vote, our voting turnout will remain abysmal.

It’s time to get creative, to think outside of the box, and to reinstate our long lost democratic system.

Special shout-out to my fix-the-world-one-heated-social-commentary-debate-at-a-time buddy, Chris Garrettson, for hashing out these ideas with me.

Kim Kardashian and the "Sanctity of Marriage"

“Mawwage. Mawwage is what bwings us together today. Wove, twue wove... So tweasure your woves fowever.” –The Clergyman in The Princess Bride

I was recently educated about the apparently hugely famous Kardashians. I’ll tell you, this was after several occasions of meeting people upon which their first reaction to the news that I live in New York City was to emphatically ask if I’d ever seen a celebrity, at least one of the Kardashians, they’d say, and I’d reply, the who?

One of the three $20,000 wedding dresses that Vera Wang donated to the Kardashian wedding.

WELL. The Kardashians are a family whose fame stems, as far as I can tell, from the patriarch having been the defense attorney in the O.J. Simpson trials in the mid-90s. And then there was Kim Kardashian’s sex tape (one of the daughters), the family’s subsequent reality TV show, a perfume and clothing line, the list goes on and on.

The most recent media explosion of the family's news is that Kim has decided to divorce her husband, after 72 days of blissful marriage. The embers of the celebrity gossip news columns still smoldering after the $10 million, star-studded, designer brand sponsored, TV sensationalized wedding, Ms. Kardashian would like everyone to know that she “would not have spent so much time on something just for a TV show” and that it was true love that inspired the marriage.

Be that as it may, there are many, many elements of this debacle that I find quite obnoxious, so I won’t spend more time on that specific event here. (I’m sure in glancing through any of the news on the wedding, you’ll find why it’s not worth the precious blahg space.) Instead, I would like to draw your attention to an alarming juxtaposition of this with some other current news.

Right now, in North Carolina, yet another legislative battle is ensuing with regard to a proposed state constitutional ban on same-sax marriage. While I feel confident that two generations down the line, my grandkids will scoff at the notion that two consenting adults, no matter their sex, were ever not allowed to marry, (similar, I would say, to the way that we now shake our heads in disbelief that it ever made sense to deem illegal the union of a black person and a white person), I wish we could move this issue along a little quicker. This senseless debate is getting old.


Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries, a couple showered with praise, adoration, massive media attention, and HUGE amounts of money, have become a highly acclaimed symbol of marriage in the US, while these people are denied their rights entirely.

 

How have we created a culture in which two people who have devoted their lives to one another, created families together, and happen to be of the same sex are considered an offense to the “sanctity of marriage” while Kim and Kris’ 30-second marriage gathered an astonishing 10.5 million eager viewers? Something here seems not quite right.

It’s time, friends, for us to truly and completely separate church and state (what a concept). And marriage, as a religious institution, should be taken out of the governmental sphere entirely. Really, the only argument that upholds the notion that same-sex couples cannot marry is that the religious institution of marriage stipulates that a couple may only be comprised of a man and woman. 

As far as the government is concerned, the legal union between two consenting adults that grants them shared benefits is just that, and marriage can be left to the churches, temples, beaches, backyards, or any other wedding venue that a couple chooses to celebrate and recognize their union (should they choose to).

Don’t get me wrong: I think that the Kim Kardashians of the world should remain free to wed at their whim and will, unimpeded by any legal means or value judgments.  Far be it for me to say what grown adults can or cannot vow to do.  After all, at the end of the day, when two people (who are not me) freely decide they want to be legally bound to one another, with all of the glory and hardships that come along with that decision, it certainly does not affect my day, and what I think of that decision certainly should not affect theirs.

But if it really is the “sanctity of marriage” that is in question, people, it is not the same-sex couples of the world who we ought to be scrutinizing.