The story is here.
It's worth mentioning that Spitzer introduced a similar bill which did not pass. It's also possibly worth mentioning that Gov. Patterson has already directed NY State agencies to recognize unions which were performed by other states.
Maybe the Gossip Girl state couldn't take all the ribbing about being "behind" Iowa in a movement?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Sweden, Denmark, and Sameness
I'm guessing anyone reading my little blog has already seen this news.
I can't say that I'm surprised, since the Scandinavian countries, and Sweden in particular, carry reputations of being lax in terms of marital status, and big on inclusion. I remember reading an article a few years ago (I believe it was New York Times, but I can't find it - apologies) that documented the rising number of couples who cohabited and had children in Norway (and possibly Sweden as well - again, sorry I'm fuzzy on the details) before getting married, though many of those couples did end up making their unions official.
This is another article on a Scandinavian country (Denmark) about which I did remember enough detail to find for you. The article concerns baby names and the government's sanctioning of them. In Denmark there is a government ministry to approve newborns' names. Nothing too outlandish or non-traditional is ever approved, or at least, not often. Such an idea is anathema to our country, a land of individuality, but the article makes a point that Denmark (and, again, much of Scandinavia) is not the U.S.: it's a socialist country which wasn't founded on the idea of individuality. The article suggests that the underlying drive of ministries like the one responsible for approving baby names in Denmark is to solidify the sameness and oneness of the population: no one can stand out too much due to his or her name, and therefore no one will, presumably, be ridiculed or revered for his or her name. That's certainly not an idea you'd expect to come from the American government, for sure.
It seems to me that one undercurrent of the collective unconscious drives the baby names issue and the same-sex marriage issue in Scandinavia: the drive to acknowledge everyone as equal, everyone as on the same footing.
Imagine that kind of drive at work in the U.S.?
I can't say that I'm surprised, since the Scandinavian countries, and Sweden in particular, carry reputations of being lax in terms of marital status, and big on inclusion. I remember reading an article a few years ago (I believe it was New York Times, but I can't find it - apologies) that documented the rising number of couples who cohabited and had children in Norway (and possibly Sweden as well - again, sorry I'm fuzzy on the details) before getting married, though many of those couples did end up making their unions official.
This is another article on a Scandinavian country (Denmark) about which I did remember enough detail to find for you. The article concerns baby names and the government's sanctioning of them. In Denmark there is a government ministry to approve newborns' names. Nothing too outlandish or non-traditional is ever approved, or at least, not often. Such an idea is anathema to our country, a land of individuality, but the article makes a point that Denmark (and, again, much of Scandinavia) is not the U.S.: it's a socialist country which wasn't founded on the idea of individuality. The article suggests that the underlying drive of ministries like the one responsible for approving baby names in Denmark is to solidify the sameness and oneness of the population: no one can stand out too much due to his or her name, and therefore no one will, presumably, be ridiculed or revered for his or her name. That's certainly not an idea you'd expect to come from the American government, for sure.
It seems to me that one undercurrent of the collective unconscious drives the baby names issue and the same-sex marriage issue in Scandinavia: the drive to acknowledge everyone as equal, everyone as on the same footing.
Imagine that kind of drive at work in the U.S.?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A little something from my old home state
In addition to New York's governor instructing state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages (and I believe civil unions?) struck in other states, New Yorkers now have their senior senator changing horses midstream and supporting gay marriage .
And, something else from the Empire State. The interesting note, to me, is that six students have come out to the teacher this year, presumably since news of his upcoming commitment ceremony to a man became public.
And, something else from the Empire State. The interesting note, to me, is that six students have come out to the teacher this year, presumably since news of his upcoming commitment ceremony to a man became public.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
!! Webster's Dictionary Changes Definition of Marriage !!
Someone forwarded me this news, and though I've been swamped with work (as you can probably tell, my not having posted for nearly a month!), I just had to post.
How about that??
*With thanks to Ruby for letting me know about the broken link!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Oscars and the Op-Eds
This is very late, but I've had a busy, busy couple of weeks!
I don't usually watch the Oscars, except for the first five minutes or so, but last night's show really sucked me in with its old fashioned glamour. And, of course, there was Sean Penn's acceptance speech. I hadn't actually intended on staying up that late, but ended up doing work while watching the show, so I was awake for Best Actor.
Well, I figured, it is Sean Penn. This isn't exactly out of the blue, for him. All the same, it was quite attention-grabbing to hear the word "shame" resounding around the glitzy, star-packed theatre.
From Thinking The Wright Way:
Laura's entries are always enlightening. I'm drawn to her no-bones-about-it writing in this passage, and her adherence to the definitions of "marriage" and "traditional marriage."
Living in a Mid-Atlantic state I can't help but come across the bolder headlines from the NY Times, and Laura's entry here put me in mind of an Op-Ed from this weekend written by a supporter of traditional marriage and an advocate for same-sex marriage. It's here, if you want to take a look.
It's so rare to see a partnership between a traditional marriage advocate and a same-sex marriage advocate that my attention was caught and kept.
I know in many European countries they have same-sex unions set up in such a way that they're not called "marriage." What do you all think of that way of doing things?
I don't usually watch the Oscars, except for the first five minutes or so, but last night's show really sucked me in with its old fashioned glamour. And, of course, there was Sean Penn's acceptance speech. I hadn't actually intended on staying up that late, but ended up doing work while watching the show, so I was awake for Best Actor.
Well, I figured, it is Sean Penn. This isn't exactly out of the blue, for him. All the same, it was quite attention-grabbing to hear the word "shame" resounding around the glitzy, star-packed theatre.
From Thinking The Wright Way:
I am not ashamed for defending traditional marriage. I am not ashamed of my opinion that sexual preference does not define a person, OR deserve special rights. It is not on the same playing field as race or color. And same-sex couples ARE different from heterosexual couples, so it makes sense that their union should be called something different. And they still have all the same rights that married heterosexual couples have. It all comes down to the definition of one little word.
Laura's entries are always enlightening. I'm drawn to her no-bones-about-it writing in this passage, and her adherence to the definitions of "marriage" and "traditional marriage."
Living in a Mid-Atlantic state I can't help but come across the bolder headlines from the NY Times, and Laura's entry here put me in mind of an Op-Ed from this weekend written by a supporter of traditional marriage and an advocate for same-sex marriage. It's here, if you want to take a look.
It's so rare to see a partnership between a traditional marriage advocate and a same-sex marriage advocate that my attention was caught and kept.
I know in many European countries they have same-sex unions set up in such a way that they're not called "marriage." What do you all think of that way of doing things?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Which Dictionary?
Number 4, below, attracted my attention. This is Dictionary.com, and there are 10 separate definitions in the full entry; I deleted the irrelevent ones for space.
I wasn't aware that that particular definition was in use on Dictionary.com. This particular entry is "based on" the Random House Dictionary, and another entry below it, from American Heritage, also includes that basic definition. Entries from Webster's and Merriam-Websters, however, do not include any reference to extra-legal "marriage," nor, of course, does Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary.
I'd be interested to know more about the selection and editorial processes of dictionaries. Anyone have any knowledge on this topic?
mar⋅riage
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage. Origin: 1250–1300; ME mariage OF, equiv. to mari(er) to marry 1 + -age
I wasn't aware that that particular definition was in use on Dictionary.com. This particular entry is "based on" the Random House Dictionary, and another entry below it, from American Heritage, also includes that basic definition. Entries from Webster's and Merriam-Websters, however, do not include any reference to extra-legal "marriage," nor, of course, does Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary.
I'd be interested to know more about the selection and editorial processes of dictionaries. Anyone have any knowledge on this topic?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Declaration
I was browsing a blog many of you know today, and roaming around got these phrases stuck in my head:
(You all know whence that comes, so no need to cite.)
There's that word again: truth. Is it true that all men are created equal? I think it is, essentially. Barring major difference in circumstance (you don't expect someone growing up never being exposed to a second language to pick it up just as easily as someone who's taught a second language from infancy, do you?), I'd say that generally speaking human beings do emerge into this world equal, at least in essentials. I believe, as far as I can tell, in the basic doctrine of Existentialism: that we are our decisions and actions, not our predestined genetics and being. But I believe that, at a certain level, we are indeed created "equal." We all seem born with the capacity to love and hate. We all seem (at least all of us I've met) able to deceive and also to follow through the biggest and best surprises. We all seem to have the capacity to grow and change.
Is it true that we humans are endowed with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? And if that is true, then is it also true that those rights are unalienable?
"Life" is an easy one that I don't feel the need to dissect here. I take that straight off of Maslow's Pyramid and say that if you achieve the bottom level of the pyramid, then you're a living (hu)man. Cats attain that much, after all.
So, to start: where do you cut off the definition of "liberty"? Do you limit it to physical liberty, the ability to move around and act as one pleases, if it harms no one? Do you extend that limit to speech and offer to say whatever truth you will, as long as it is not a slanderous or libelous lie? (We in the U.S. do, obviously!)
When do you limit the "pursuit of happiness"? When harm comes to others? I imagine Charles Manson was in some sick way "happy" with himself when he was free. (Maybe he still is; I don't like to hear or read about the man, so I don't know.)
Self-evident truths: Equality, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I don't see how my hopes for our country deprive anyone of any of those things. I really don't.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
(You all know whence that comes, so no need to cite.)
There's that word again: truth. Is it true that all men are created equal? I think it is, essentially. Barring major difference in circumstance (you don't expect someone growing up never being exposed to a second language to pick it up just as easily as someone who's taught a second language from infancy, do you?), I'd say that generally speaking human beings do emerge into this world equal, at least in essentials. I believe, as far as I can tell, in the basic doctrine of Existentialism: that we are our decisions and actions, not our predestined genetics and being. But I believe that, at a certain level, we are indeed created "equal." We all seem born with the capacity to love and hate. We all seem (at least all of us I've met) able to deceive and also to follow through the biggest and best surprises. We all seem to have the capacity to grow and change.
Is it true that we humans are endowed with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? And if that is true, then is it also true that those rights are unalienable?
"Life" is an easy one that I don't feel the need to dissect here. I take that straight off of Maslow's Pyramid and say that if you achieve the bottom level of the pyramid, then you're a living (hu)man. Cats attain that much, after all.
So, to start: where do you cut off the definition of "liberty"? Do you limit it to physical liberty, the ability to move around and act as one pleases, if it harms no one? Do you extend that limit to speech and offer to say whatever truth you will, as long as it is not a slanderous or libelous lie? (We in the U.S. do, obviously!)
When do you limit the "pursuit of happiness"? When harm comes to others? I imagine Charles Manson was in some sick way "happy" with himself when he was free. (Maybe he still is; I don't like to hear or read about the man, so I don't know.)
Self-evident truths: Equality, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I don't see how my hopes for our country deprive anyone of any of those things. I really don't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
