P.S. about yesterday: Not that smaller, less centralized units, like the Puritan colonists (who were Protestant) for example, can't also be authoritarian. But that's another example of people going elsewhere to avoid oppression by those who thought they were wrong about religion, and proceeding to oppress anyone who they thought was wrong about religion. So it kind of follows what I was talking about too... with how much coherence, I'm not sure.

News of the day: Massachusetts court rules that gay people should be able to get married in Massachusetts (starting May 17). Made the mistake of attempting to engage my mom in discussion about it this morning, instead of letting a disappointed comment of hers slide. She doesn't do logical fact-based debate very well, and then I get impatient when she refuses to ever admit any sort of inconsistency or vagueness in her opinions and instead of answering a direct question zags off into another generalization/doleful prediction, and as I get frustrated she gets defensive and accuses me of thinking/calling her stupid, and bleh.

I suppose it's valuable to my thinking to have someone whom I love and am close to hold ideas that are different from mine, whose basis in rationality I cannot fathom. It helps me be aware, I suspect, of a rather large portion of the American electorate.

Best I could figure out, my mom's objections to it were:

Those gay people want everyone to say they're normal, and they're just not; 'it's like someone being born without an arm and they want everyone else to say they have two arms.' Well, I suppose she's kind of right as far as a basic definition of "normal" being "what the majority is". Whatever the estimate may be of the percentage of the population that's gay, I've never heard any claims above 10 or 12 percent, and I have the impression many folks think it may be more towards 5. I just don't see what this has to do with letting gay couples get married. I don't know of any "normality tests" being administered to straight couples before they're allowed to marry.

I mean that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, in order to form a family unit. They keep trying to get it into the schools, teaching kindergardeners and first graders that it's normal to have two mommies or two daddies, and it's just not. They shouldn't be talking to kindergardeners about sex. Uh. I'm pretty sure no one in school does talk to kindergardeners about sex, of any variety. Again this thing about "normal". I suggested that she is simply weirded out by the idea of gay sex and this is the basis of her opinions. She denied it but did not offer any countering evidence, instead saying

They want to adopt children and it just can't be healthy for children to grow up with that. With what? Seeing that, seeing people having sex all over the place. oh where to begin. I really don't think either gay or straight couples want their children to see them having sex. People who go out picking people up all the time are not the people who are in stable couples and want to have children. Party people of any sort wouldn't want children. Straight couples get screened when they want to adopt, and so would gay couples. The straightness or gayness of a couple should be irrelevant; the suitability of the home should be the issue. You have to take everyone on a case-by-case basis.

They [gay couples] already have civil unions that give them all the rights that marriage does, like being able to visit in the hospital and draw up their wills. I have an idea that's not completely true, certainly not in every state. In California. Well, OK, you might be right, but not everywhere, maybe not Massachusetts. They already have civil unions, but they want to rub it in our faces and call it "marriage." Uh.

Bleh. Making me tired, again.

It's the word "married." Some people are being caused mental anguish by not being able to obtain the label, and some would be caused mental anguish if those others did obtain it. How about this: everyone, gay or straight, who says "we two are a couple" and goes to City Hall gets treated the same way, same checks and tests, same questions, same certificate with identical legal privileges and responsibilities to what was previously called "marriage," which now says on it "Civil Union." The couple then calls themselves "married" if they want. Churches can perform separate "marriage" ceremonies according to their own philosophies. All these citizens, equal under the law, are just trying to live their lives in pursuit of happiness. I cannot see why not to do this.

contents of the purple tricycle are copyright 2004 carrie lynn king unless otherwise noted.