So tomorrow the world will change. It'll either be an actual change (Obama) or resigning ourselves to four more years of the same, except with the possibility that things might actually get worse (McCain, even scarier is Palin). And while the Presidential election is obviously number one on everyone's mind, there's a lot more to think about. In several states there are amendments or propositions on the ballot to ban gay marriage or take away the rights of unmarried couples or prohibit unmarried couples from adopting children. The one making the most waves is Proposition 8 in California that would make gay marriage illegal. I'm not a California voter but I have a number of friends who would be affected by this if it passes. I can't believe that such obvious discrimination could even make it on to the ballot. And when you're gay or a minority who has experienced discrimination in your own life, I don't understand how you can vote to make it legal to discriminate against others. I don't understand why the religious right are so threatened by homosexuals. Why should it be anybody else's business if you love someone and you want to marry them? Who cares if you're both the same sex? How does someone else's marriage and family life, no matter their sexual preference, affect your life? It doesn't. Some politicians make it sound like gay is a disease and if we don't ban all of these different things, it's gonna catch and our kids are gonna get it. I don't care if my children turn out to be gay. So long as they're happy, I'm happy. Then, there's amendment 2 in Florida that would ban marriage for gay couples and domestic partnership for all couples, essentially taking away the rights of straight couples who choose not to marry. I live in a state where domestic partnership is non-existent and it's a bit of a pain in the ass to cover all your bases, just in case anything happens to your partner. Act 1 in Arkansas seeks to ban all unmarried couples, gay or straight, from adopting or fostering children. It's main objective, of course, is to prevent gay couples from adopting. But I saw someone from the state's government on television the other night trying to justify why straight, single people or straight couples who don't want to marry are unfit to give children a home. He got taken to task by the host of the show, who is in the straight, non-married category, after he said to her face (well, via satellite) that she would be unfit to raise a child. He even went so far as to suggest that perhaps Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt should have their adopted children taken away because it can't possibly be a "good, wholesome family environment" for the kids if mom and dad aren't married.
All of this is like politicians and religious folks are trying to take us back to the 1950's. Back to when the television always showed homemaker mom and dad in a suit and tie and two or three perfect kids. It's never gonna be like that again. And what is this "traditional family unit" I keep hearing about anyway? It hasn't been that 50's scenario for a long time. I grew up in a house with my mom, siblings, grandma, aunt, uncle and cousins at one point. I couldn't name a house in the neighborhood that had that "tradition" thing going on. Even now, I don't know a lot of people who have that kind of household. But if a kid has two dads or two moms around that love him or her and support them and are always there for them, how is that a bad thing? I grew up without a father but with plenty of male role models and more love than any kid should ever have and I don't feel like I'm "damaged" (by that situation, anyway) or like I missed out on anything. There is no typical family. And there is no right or wrong color or sexual orientation or living situation or religion. We all have free will for a reason. If it's my choice to never get married, it doesn't affect anyone else (although Mom would disagree). If me and the non-official Mrs. want to adopt kids six years down the road, as long as we're fit parents it shouldn't matter if we're married or not. And if we choose to raise them as some kind of hybrids, in terms of religion that is, again, no one's business. I shudder to think about what freedoms might be taken away from people should Palin become v.p. I mean, if you've been charged with corruption in Alaska, of all places, can you imagine what could go wrong as the second in command of the country? Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
