Notes on marriage equality

Dear pals,

A close, but somewhat blog-shy friend sent me an email commenting on my last post. Since s/he is such a wicked smart person, I wanted to share his/her comments with you all. Here, then, without editorial comment, is the note [Hope that's okay blog-shy pal!]:

Gay marriage is something that I have a hard time with--not because I'm agin it, but because I think its advocates are making lots of mistakes that play into the hands of their opponents.

First, let's not pretend, as I heard some people say in the California debates, that this is such a fundamental right that it may not be subject to the political process. In the world of fundamental rights, it's an extremely recent discovery, and I think it's unreasonable to expect people to accept it as such simply because some Supreme Court or another said so. As with Roe v. Wade, it is a political mistake, as well as something that's extremely damaging to our political and social fabric, for an unelected council of "wise men" to yank a contentious issue out of politics when the nation as a whole isn't anywhere near a consensus. Lead, certainly--but not by so much that the bulk of the people can't even see you.

It was absolutely critical, in the case of gay marriage in Massachusetts, that the otherwise spineless, corrupt, and generally contemptible legislature finally came up with the intestinal fortitude to vote on a petition to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage (after the SJC had made it a right)--various of the legislative "leaders" were trying all kinds of shenanigans to let the petition die without a vote, in clear violation of the state constitution's clauses dealing with amendments. Because they voted, even though the amendment didn't get enough votes from the legislature to be put on the ballot (and therefore died), the opponents of gay marriage could no longer argue that they'd been shut out of the process.

I don't think the opponents of gay marriage generally have good, solid, well-reasoned arguments to use--there aren't any. But. Tradition, visceral reaction to change, visceral reaction to hearing that your cherished beliefs, learned at your mother's knee, are primitive and irrational, visceral reaction to hearing that you have nowhere in politics to express those beliefs... You have to deal with those things, too. Time will work. Patience will work. Bullying, not so much. Judicial decrees, in this context, count as bullying. Let the legislatures with the stones to address the issue do so, and eventually the rest of the country will be too embarrassed not to follow.

What’s threatening YOUR marriage?

A new blogging friend wrote recently about our country’s current, and hopefully temporary, inability to support same-sex marriage. I blogged about this briefly in the past, but I’m pissed again and need to vent.


Small-minded opponents to same-sex marriage say that it threatens “traditional” marriage. How ridiculous is that? My husband, whom I’ll call Archie, and I don’t argue about whether or not Sid and Tony should get married. No, the top three things that married couples argue about are: sex, money, and in-laws [I know, I can’t believe I quoted Dr. Phil either!]. I can assure you that my marriage to Archie would not be in the least bit threatened if Rob and Dave, our neighbors up the hill, were to marry each other. Quite the opposite: their 23-year bond is an inspiration.

Clearly, this threat-to-traditional-marriage bs is a specious smokescreen for what they really object to, but for the life of me, I can’t imagine what that might be. Some words in an ancient document written and re-written over the past 2000 years by unknown sources [sorry, I know this comment might offend some of you, but I just have to say it]?

I’m so ashamed of what used to be the most progressive state in the union, my adopted state, California, for passing the hateful Proposition 8 last November. I think we should decouple marriage from our secular government altogether. We should all get civil unions, gay and straight, and civil unions should come with all the protections that are now applied to marriage. Then if religious folk want to seal their union in a church of their choosing, go dog go!

Kids, I’m standing in my cubicle now, red-faced, banging my fist on the desk. I better sit down and get back to work before I get fired or something.

What do you think?

Oh those kids!

Ignited bi-coastal culture wars with the last post, let's see what we can stir up on age-ism. Remember my earlier post on the trend to hire college grads? Well, check this out:

If you recall, I said that companies I know are pushing to hire Generation Yers because they're cheaper. So I read today in a story from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that Gen Yers aren't having any of it. These folks are "largely disappointed with the workplace" and are "leaving jobs within a year or two and costing companies big investments in training and turnover."

Firstly, WHAT? American businesses looking at the short-term gains and not the long-term costs? I can't believe it [sic]. And secondly, serves 'em right.

Lastly, the article concludes with saying that "we as baby boomers [current workers and parents of Gen Yers] told them [Gen Yers] they can do anything." The Gen Yers "don't feel compelled to stay in jobs they don't like if they can go back to living with their parents until the next thing comes along."

Man, that's rich! The current workforce raised a generation of kids who are not only replacing them at work, but then turning up their noses at the jobs they get from their parents because the jobs aren't good enough. And then, moving home to live with their parents, the very ones who are being displaced. Is life a circle or what?

What do you think?

The beat goes on

Halfway through a bottle of wine with a good buddy last Thursday night, the conversation turned to blog talk. My friend commented that I, your pal Mary, was negative. Or at least that this blog was negative. Now granted, this friend is a native Californian and they do tend to be rather nice people. A calm, gentle people perhaps tinged with a touch of smugness now and then, but who wouldn't be with near-perfect weather most of the time. [I can’t tell you how many times after moving here from the East coast people asked me, “Why are you so angry?” BECAUSE IT’S FUNNY! And there's a lot to be angry about. But I digress...]

Anyway, it got me to thinking. Am I too negative, should I just go with the flow more? Then, just in the nick of time, another good buddy, this one on the East coast and traveling to points even farther east of Eden, sent me a link to a song that so completely validates my point of view. [Apparently the farther east one goes, the more … angry … one becomes.] Really, check this song out … it’s hilarious. Warning: it’s not fit for children and you may find yourself singing “F**k you” in a cheery tone all day. But it’ll be worth it.

What do you think?

Shut up!

Kids, I know you’ve been here: 42-minutes into a scheduled 60-minute meeting and the conversation’s winding down. Maybe the boss is nearing the end of her soporific about taking your ethics training or updating your professional profile. You feel the end of the meeting coming on. You wonder if you’ll have time to get a cuppa joe. Heck, maybe you’ll even get to go to the bathroom before the start of your next meeting.

And then the boss issues the killing words, “Anybody have anything else?” or, even worse, “Let’s do a quick roundtable.”

OMG! I feel the hairs on the back of my neck rising. No! not a roundtable. Because you know no one but me is going to say, “Nothing new to report, my projects are moving along on schedule.” Oh, no. Everyone’s got to sound busy, officious, important. It has to seem like everyone’s thinking really hard, solving crises, or critically needing the boss to help them resolve an issue.

If you’re on the phone, you can roll your eyes a few times. I find that helps relieve stress. But if you’re all in a room together, it’s deadly. Then you have to look politely around as everyone yawps on about Bill not completing his dashboard items or Phyllis forgetting to contact the lawyers. [Is anyone named Phyllis anymore?]

Sometimes in meetings like that I imagine my coworkers as children, or more precisely what they were like as children. It’s easy with the engineers: they’re exactly as they are now, only smaller. [Ha! That’ll get ya to comment, won’t it, TA?] The marketeers probably all had red hair and freckles and had trouble sitting still. And the finance people…hum, tell the truth, I’m not sure I’ve ever been in a meeting with a bunch of finance people. There’s usually just the one—who tells you you can’t do what you want to do. Bored, detached, oh so fed up with you all. Or was that the attorney? And we all know what the attorneys looked like when they were children, don’t we?

What do you think?

Minions

Read a newspaper article recently that discussed how college grads are worried about getting jobs In This Economy. I have some good news for them: the two high tech companies I've had the most recent experience with are looking exclusively to hire college grads. I wonder why? Let's think about it...

One of my bosses put it out there that the company wanted to hire "junior" people. That way, her reasoning went, we seniors [not AARP members, mind you, it would be illegal to refer to our age] could have help with the grunt work as we set our sights on rising the corporate ladder. Um, okay, that's possible. But at that company, the ladder in question was chock full of rabid risers who were frantically kicking at those below. So I'm not sure the company was really interested in putting more of us on the road to success.

Another manager at that company made a mistake and told half the truth to the folks on her staff. She said that the company was looking to get new blood and new ideas in a last ditch effort to change the company's image to that of a hip, happening software company rather than the aging dinosaur that it actually was. No wonder that manager was having trouble being promoted to director.

My current company makes no bones about the truth: new college grads are cheaper. And they're malleable: make them what you want, then when they start to make more money, pitch them for newer, even younger lickspittles (great word, isn't it?).

I guess in a way I appreciate being leveled with. Or maybe as Sheryl Crowe says, lie to me.

Back to the article, tho. There's a picture of this dude sitting on a velour sofa amidst strewn dirty laundry, video game controller, a guitar, and a leopard print pillow. Did he read in a book how to look like a stereotypical college boy? Yikes! Turns out he just got his undergrad degree in history. And he's JUST NOW worrying about getting a job? What was he thinking four years ago? That McDonald's would be hiring, so no worries?

Sorry, I love history, and I love literature, but if you're gonna major in those things in college, forget about worrying about getting a job. Just have a trust fund.

What do you think?

New best friend

Kids, it seems there's a writer at The San Jose Mercury News from whom I was separated at birth. Check it out: Cassidy: Are layoffs wrong? We should at least be asking the question, San Jose Mercury News, 6/5, Mike Cassidy

Here's something I love from his post: And looking at the list of the bosses [from a recent SJ Merc survey] and what they make, shouldn't we ask whether it's morally defensible for a top executive to accept tens of millions in pay while he is destroying the lives of his workers? Can a chief executive who is set for life really understand what it's like to face the loss of your job, home and self-respect?

I think I love this guy.

What do you think?