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?
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
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!
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.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Outline
Well, I finally joined the club and started a blog. I've been thinking about it for a while, especially since November, and now that Dominique got serious, I decided to join in!!
I've read blogs for several years now - at least since 2005 - and have been following some really interesting ones in the past couple of months. It feels like everything has gotten more interesting in the last couple of months sometimes, at least in our country! It seems like this is the time to make decisions and take a stand for truth, or justice, or BOTH, if they happen to be the same thing at the time.
Lately, I'm not sure justice is always oriented to truth. And truth certainly hasn't appeared in all the official justice the last few months. Those of you who know me in real life know I'm not a lawyer (or even a law student), so when I talk about "truth" or "justice" from a legislative standpoint I may sound a little ignorant to some of the readers who come across this blog. That's okay with me. What's not okay to me anymore is sitting back idly.
Here we go!
I've read blogs for several years now - at least since 2005 - and have been following some really interesting ones in the past couple of months. It feels like everything has gotten more interesting in the last couple of months sometimes, at least in our country! It seems like this is the time to make decisions and take a stand for truth, or justice, or BOTH, if they happen to be the same thing at the time.
Lately, I'm not sure justice is always oriented to truth. And truth certainly hasn't appeared in all the official justice the last few months. Those of you who know me in real life know I'm not a lawyer (or even a law student), so when I talk about "truth" or "justice" from a legislative standpoint I may sound a little ignorant to some of the readers who come across this blog. That's okay with me. What's not okay to me anymore is sitting back idly.
Here we go!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
