Thu, Aug. 5th, 2004, 06:48 pm
The smell of him
I met Ristin at the airport. It was only an hour and twenty minutes with him, but that meant every minute was precious, magical. We talked and cuddled and hugged, taking care not to waste a moment. Even now the scent of him still lingers. It's amazing how even such a short time with him gave me such a lift. I need him.
In related news, Labor proudly proclaims to a Christian forum
it has the same policies as the Liberal Party on gay marriage. Once again, Labor fails to show the leadership that would justify its claim to be an alternative government.
You know, you Christians can keep the sanctity of marriage. I don't really need it. But I do need an avenue for my love and commitment to Ristin to be formally recognised. I want him as my life partner and I want all the rights and responsibilities that that would entail for a heterosexual couple. I've had enough of men (and it is overwhelmingly men) interpreting God's will on earth. If my love so upsets Her, let Her speak for Herself. The world has moved on.
Thu, Aug. 5th, 2004 05:00 am (UTC)
ozkangaroo: The Smell!
Oh beleive me i know!, he left his hat here and it is STINKY!
lol i just can't get the smell out!,
I need Racoon away, it won't let you down...
Thu, Aug. 5th, 2004 11:00 am (UTC)
I've been thinking for a long time why gay, etc., people would actually want
to be married in a traditional catholic/christian way, considering most of the people I have met don't believe in that kind of God and hate the church with a passion. Let them have their male-female marriages, and whatever pretty little rules they want.
However, I am a big believer in allowing same sex unions that have all the same privileges and disadvantages as traditional ones. To some extent you can do some of the things (leaving everything to them in a will, listing them as next of kin, etc.) but it is no where near enough. So long as it is as "fair" and "equal" as traditional legal unions, I am happy.
Thu, Aug. 5th, 2004 12:21 pm (UTC)
I don't know about elsewhere, but those kind of unions are referred to as "civil unions" in the States, and I am all in support of it.
Thu, Aug. 5th, 2004 12:28 pm (UTC)
Do they offer all the benefits/disadvantages as regular marriage - ie, being able to visit in hospital when it is "immediate family only", allowing for adoption, filing for "divorce", etc.? Not taking a shot at you, just wondering, as US law and so forth often leaves me scratching my head...
Thu, Aug. 5th, 2004 09:08 pm (UTC)
Not exactly sure myself, darth, but, as befits our federalist system, it is left up to the states whether or not to have civil unions. Vermont was the first state to enact civil unions, during the early '90s, and many other states thereafter followed suit. A civil union for homosexuals would entail all the benefits you'd expect from a hetero marriage -- only it's simply not called "marriage." And then there's some states, like my home state of Massachusetts, which have gone all the way and legalized gay marriage. Gay marriages are officially recognized by the state of Massachusetts but are not in other states, even those with civil union statutes.
Fri, Aug. 6th, 2004 07:04 am (UTC)
*hugs you and Ristin*
glad you managed to meet up :)
Hear what you're saying regarding the marriage issue - we had a christian party aiming to represent us in Europe who wanted to recognise JC in the pre-amble to the European Constitution, and they had similar ideals of "promoting good family values" *fumes*
Fri, Aug. 6th, 2004 01:51 pm (UTC)
marko_the_rat: Re: (a not-quite-serious post)
I've met some very nice Christians who do great credit to their religion. But I lose interest when they start talking about their religion.
Fri, Aug. 6th, 2004 08:31 pm (UTC)
sissycoon: Re: (a not-quite-serious post)
One of my best friends back home here in Boston is a devout Catholic, but is one of the most down-to-earth guys you'd ever meet and is totally prejudice-free ... but I too turn off a bit whenever he tries to draw me into a theological convo.