Geek/Dork/Nerd: let’s-have-a-rainbow-wedding edition

actually it's never been *proven* that the reclusive emily was a lesbian. she might have been a-sexual for all we really know about her. since she hardly ever left the house, and she lived with her family her whole life, it's hard to know.

Yeah, I knew that, but she was on several list of famous lesbians I found online. I wonder what their reasons were for putting her on those lists...

I heard this a while back but never heard of anyone acting on it: Civil Unions. Not for 'gays' - for everyone. Any two consenting adults. Why is the government regulating marriage anyways? Legal and business (insurance, etc) reasons exist to have the need for the legal union, but why should they care who it is? Marriage is a personal, relational thing and has nothing to do with the legal union. Silly.

My gut feeling is that Emily was not a lesbian. I feel strongly about this because for years I have been working on a projected TV series, "Emily Dickinson, Cowgirl Detective", where she teams up with Walt Whitman (she's the star, he's sidekick and comic relief). They ride off to the West and solve mysteries, lasso calves, write poetry, and ponder the human heart. If I have to rewrite to include the lesbian angle, that's a lot of work! Whoever she yearned for - she was passionate! 249 Wild Nights-Wild Nights! Were I with thee Wild Nights should be Our luxury! Futile-the Winds- To a Heart in port- Done with the Compass- Done with the Chart! Rowing in Eden- Ah, the Sea! Might I but moor-Tonight- In Thee! I hear the forced gay-marriage bill is on hold until Al Gore is reelected President. All kidding aside, I think marriage has at least as much to with legal stuff as relational stuff. Historically, perhaps it has been more legal than relational.

"Civil Unions. Not for 'gays' - for everyone. Any two consenting adults. Why is the government regulating marriage anyways" Bingo. I haven't heard anyone explain in any way how a "civil union" differs from a "marriage" -- it's the same thing called by a different name. No one is suggesting that churches should be forced to perform a religious marriage ceremony for two people their faith believes shouldn't marry, but there is no logical rationale for denying any two people able to consent the legal and social benefits of civil marriage. And we certainly should not be inscribing a *limitation* on freedom in the Constitution -- and it stuns me that it's so-called "conservatives," who used to be all about *Constitutional* conservativism and limiting the power of government, who are calling for this.

My attorney asks: 1) Should we extend marriage to more than two people? Should the government continue to outlaw polygamy? 2) Should siblings be able to marry? I think there is a time that government should be able to step into people's right to marry - I don't think siblings should be able to marry. I don't know how I feel about legalizing polygamy. However, restricting people's rights based on "slippery slope" arguments seems very cowardly to me. Gays can have committment ceremonies at wecoming churches (including mine) and legal agreements to protect their rights as couples. But these options are more complicated and time-consuming than marriage. I think reasonable questions to ask of people opposing gay marriage are "How does gay marriage threaten you personally? What are you afraid will happen to you if gay people marry?"

There aren't too many siblings who want to marry -- I'd venture to guess that there are so few as to be, basically, none. If sibling marriage were to be legalized today, there would not be a sudden rush of siblings to city hall to get hitched. Ditto the situations of some of the truly offensive "slippery slope" arguments some anti-gay-marriage types put forth: What's to stop people marrying dogs? for instance. No one is biding his time waiting for human-canine marriage to be legalized. Polygamy is a trickier issue -- why should the government interfere in the private affairs of consenting adults? Of course, much of the practice of polygamy today does NOT involve consenting adults but children -- female children, of course -- being forced into relationships they do not have the legal right to consent to. Take away that unhealthy social factor, of the coercion of young girls, and there may not be very many people looking to set themselves up in "marriages" of more than two people. Perhaps there is no way to organize a stable relationship of equals among more than two people. But if there is, why should the government care? Perhaps the real solution to this problem is to eliminate marriage. Well, not the social institution of marriage -- I doubt that will ever go away -- but the automatic legal benefits that accrue to married couples. Perhaps instead of issuing marriage certificates, governments should simply be passing out paperwork to be filled out: powers of attorney, health-care proxies, that kind of thing. Why shouldn't a brother and sister be able to be each other's legal guardian in the event the other is incapacitated, if they so choose to do so for each other? Why should a man and a woman who are married to each other automatically have the right to make health-care decisions even if they haven't even lived together in years? Why should the amount of taxes you pay depend upon whether you're married or not?