Meh...

In a recent post, I talked about gay marriage. I think I made it sound like I was universally in support of it. This is sort of misleading. While I am in support of the rights it pre-supposes for long-term couples, I have some issues with it.
I think it puts gay couples in a very weird position. On one hand, obviously any couple would want the tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, etc that marriage would offer, and certainly I don't think couples should be denied these rights merely on the basis of their gender.
But on the other hand, it's a very sneaky technique used by the mainstream to make gays fit into its norms, to make a gay couple identical to a straight couple when obviously there are differences. And to show any reticence at taking on the role of the mainstream is as good as showing reticence to the rights they offer...
I know many people/couples/situations that do not and will not subscribe to a traditional idea as a 'married couple' and therefore will not be rewarded with the rights the government gives to 'traditional' couples.
Also, I think in establishing a marriage, you establish certain (gender-based) roles, and viewpoint I share my friend Karen, who actually was married. To be fair, I only know one other married couple (Kieth and Kate) and I have not discussed this with them.
I feel that, if I were to make a commitment to some boy (Obviously here, more than I have already) that I would want it to be based on the unique, personal relationship I had with him rather than some sort of adherence to a role. For me, a real commitment would hinge on the fact that you have the freedom to get up and leave at any point without repercussion, but you voluntarily chose daily to be with your person day after day.
I sort of look at monogamy in askance, anyway. For me, anyway, I don't think sex is that big of a deal... There are other, more important agents of compatibilty and other reasons for a couple to stay together. I was talking to Big Al at work the other day about What Would End a Relationship, and for me, sex never really entered into it. I mean, for any reason some one might cheat, I was pretty relaxed about it.... If your were just bored with your lover, or wanted to try something your lover wouldn't do, or just plain ol' had the chance to fuck a hott person on the fly -- none of these would really bother me, as long as the person came back. It wouldn't even particularly bother me if I didn't know they cheated, as long as we had some other basis for a relationship besides sex.
That said... I have never been cheated on, so all this is said with a helping of blessed innocence.
Also -- much more importantly -- I am very involved with someone who does not share these views, so I'm certainly not going to sleep around now.

Anyway, see below for Sen -- and Presidential Candidate -- John Edwards reply to my query on his stance on gay marriage.

In other news, I had the most distrubing dream -- I was in my high school American History class when a nuclear bomb dropped. People in front of the window were burned by the flash, and I did the old duck but worried cause I had no cover. The thing I remember most was the screaming that didn't end. I told myself this was a dream, and I should wake up but I didn't and was sure I was really there...
I did wake up, eventually covered in sweat and out of breathe. Weird, hunh?

I hope I can break out of this foulsomely ill mood I'm in...

Soundtrack: Camera Obscura, as overplayed on WXDU, Underachievers Please Try Harder. (No 2 on this week's Top 88!)
Current Book: Dr Who - Emotional Chemisty. Russia: 1812, 2024, 5000. What connects them? Beats me, but it's heavy with reference to Magnus Greel (The Talons of Weng-Chiang) so it must be interesting. Mind the Zygma beams! Also, it has OGRON: Russia does UNIT...

Addendum !:

Dear Mr. Eckard:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.J. Res. 56, legislation
proposing an amendment to the Constitution related to marriage. I appreciate
hearing from you.

As you may know, states generally maintain the authority to establish the
definition of and the requirements for marriage. However, current federal law
defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and
wife" and defines "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

H.J. Res. 56 proposes a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage in the
United States can only consist of the union between a man and a woman. This
amendment would also state that neither the federal Constitution, the
constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, could be construed to
require that marital status be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. H.J.
Res. 56 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

As a matter of personal belief, I do not support gay marriage, although
I believe that gays and lesbians in committed relationships have both rights and
responsibilities and should be entitled to partnerships benefits under our laws.

I also have deep reverence for our Constitution, and believe it should
be amended only when absolutely necessary. I am not able to support this
legislation. Please be assured that I will keep your strong views about this
issue in mind as it is considered by the Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Yours sincerely,

John Edwards
United States Senate