I got a comment...hurray! And here I was thinking I was writing in some vacuum that only 3 people (who I personally know) were maybe reading at all. Thanks Nick, I am a Zionide fan! If there is anyone else out there (Bueller, Bueller.... Bueller), feel free to let me know.
Anyways, Nick's comment definitely got me thinking more deeply about my last post about gay marriage. I agree with you -- having it be a "marriage" would absolutely be the ideal scenario. However, I just do not think the climate right now will allow it. Heck, this is a country that I don't think is even going to consider electing a non-white male president any time soon. Unfortunately, I see same-sex "marriage" further down Acceptance Road... there is significant public opposition, a Republican president and Congress, a Supreme Court with a shaky future (present?), and even "friendly" Democrats who seem to be unwilling to take on the issue. Now I know that the women's and civil rights movements were not easy battles either (and certainly worth fighting for), but I fear waging this battle now will set things back more than they will move it forward.
As I said in the last post, the word "marriage" carries a lot of (too much?!) baggage - and that seems to be the initial (and very high) hurdle. Do I like the phrases "civil union" or "domestic partnership" -- no, not really...they are both pretty antiseptic. But then again, I don't like any of these either: husband or spouse (too "straight"), partner or significant other (pretty sterile), lover (ugh!), boyfriend (getting too old for that). I tend to use "we" and "us" a lot.
Do I want to be "married"? Not really. (Can I still register at Crate and Barrel though?). It is yet another word/label that I am not totally comfortable with. However, would I like the legal rights of it...absolutely! I don't consider "civil unions" or the ilk to be riding on the back of the bus -- across the aisle perhaps -- but as long as I can go along for the ride (and maybe that is settling), that is good enough for me.
***********
Okay, back to your regularly scheduled trivial blog entry...
This time last week, I was lamenting about Rupert's invincibility and the inability of his fellow castaways to vote him off Survivor: Pearl Islands. Well, what do you know this week the big lizard was mercilessly swallowed up by the island snakes (please, CBS if I wanted to really see that I would watch The Discovery Channel).
It was time for Rupert to go. His hubris outgrew his man-skirt to the point where anyone winning a challenge or having a strategic game thought that did not include him was an affront to morality and goodness. This was only summed up in his exit speech... lamenting over that he always gets hurt trusting people and that somehow winning Survivor would have righted the wrongs he experienced in life. I've watched Survivor seven times now...when are people going to realize that the show is not about trust, goodness, morals, and "deserving" to win?
That said, I know I have been pretty tough on Rupert, who arguably is the most popular Survivor contestant ever. If his portrayal on the show is accurate, he is certainly an upstanding, honest, big-hearted, highly capable, and loyal human being. I was not rooting against him - but just frustrated that he thought his best qualities would take him to the end. His popularity, ability and "goodness" sunk him by the end of Episode 1. I am sure his post-Survivor life will be all the things he wished for even without being the sole survivor. And I have a feeling we'll be seeing 'ole Rupert again...he was mysteriously "unavailable" for the usual CBS's The Early Show morning after interview this morning. Could he be off surviving again?!
Comments