Somewhere between the sardine packed Metro ride this morning (honestly, where the hell are those people going?) and flipping some of my lunch onto my freshly dry-cleaned pants, I nearly lost my sanity.

Fortunately, the mental break was temporarily eased by what most would consider a lunch (the part that didn’t end up on my pants) worthy of Hagar the Horrible – peppers and sausages – but my Italian-heritage wife assures me that it is healthy enough. Having been raised in Virginia (not know for eschewing pig meat – call it what it is), I heartily endorse the meal. My heart would nod in agreement but is likely too busy trying to crack its way through the cholesterol.

Been a light blogging month, feeling both busy and torn about writing anything personal. Nervousness about who’s reading what, esp. in regards to employment and so on. Not to mention general anxieties about our somewhat crazy-ass world and what’s going on in it. All leading to tongue-tied-ness and a general emphasis on an oddly curt writing style.

Let’s see – weekly recap. Saturday, spent afternoon in hospital with Lisa checking on the baby, who seemed to suddenly stop moving much for the two days preceding. Cause for general concern, so we went (as those cheeky Brits say) “to hospital.” Baby is fine and held up a sign that read: “Really, I’m just trying to sleep in here. Scram.” Who knows where he got the pen and paper, but it was a wild sight on the ultrasound. Kids are getting smarter these days, so I suspect the baby will be born with dissertation in-hand, making him/her more ready for the job market than I am. (S)He will likely also have more hair.

Saturday night, we celebrated (a bit early) dave’s 30th, where there was much wine and even more cheese. Dave’s addiction to cheese frightens most mice into rehab, so he seemed to have a good time.

Sunday was relatively uneventful, except for an embarrassing moment where I found myself uncontrollably laughing at an inappropriate moment (specifically, in the middle of a homily at Mass). I won’t go into details as to why, but let’s just say that a person very close to me displayed her wise-cracking skills at perhaps not the most opportune time. I eventually recovered.

Monday night, I took my karate exam, earning my next belt (green).

Tuesday, we upgraded our mobile phone service package and in my near insanity, I scribbled out a recap of that event, fascinating as it was [insert irony here]. Review of our new phones available soon.

I was pleased to see that Massachusetts courts finally did something rational in looking at the state constitution and realizing that, by golly, there was nothing in there saying homosexuals were prohibited from marrying one another. About time.

I honestly don’t understand those who get their knickers in a bunch about this topic – I mean, folks do realize, don’t they, that such a decision doesn’t mean that everyone has to enter a gay marriage, right? I mean, the court isn’t saying that Tony, who lives down the street, must divorce his wife and summarily marry a man, and his wife a woman. That seems clear to me, but maybe not so much to others?

I’ve yet to see a convincing argument as to why civil marriages should be denied to homosexual partners. Destroying the American family? I don’t see calls for state constitutional amendments to prohibit divorce or punish infidelity. If “tradition” is what we’re looking for, those two aspects of our society would seemingly outrage those same constituents who clamor to deny homosexual marriage. And yet, crickets chirp. Religious opposition? Fine, that’s really not my call, but we’re talking civil marriages here (and the legal rights and responsibilities therein), not religious ceremonies. So religious arguments aren’t really relevant to the discussion in this case. I would happily listen (though likely not agree) to reasons that explained why oppositions to civil marriage between same sex partners weren’t simply bigotry clothed in moral rhetoric, but I haven’t heard any that exceeds the basic argument that “it just ain’t right.”

So, kudos to the courts for recognizing things for what they are.


5 Responses to Lunchtime Ruminations

  1. Lisa says:

    Um… this is your Italian-American wife speaking… the sausage wasn’t pig meat. In fact, it was turkey and apple. Sorry to disappoint…
    but the purpose for making it was that you’d eat it (at least the part of it that didn’t land in your lap… are you sure you’re not pregnant?) if it sounded unhealthy enough 😉 Still, the dish is only 496 calories per one cup serving over one cup of pasta with 26% from fat–which may not qualify as health food… but it isn’t going to harden your arteries either. At least, it won’t harden them as quickly as… say… pizza?

    Good wrap-up of the weekend, though. Perhaps you’ll have to start writing my diary entries for me… Yours are much more entertaining to read 🙂

    Sigh… I must go back to grading project proposals on why Tupac Shakur’s poems should be acceptable subjects of a college essay.

  2. Marc says:

    Damn. I miss my wife.

    You trying to say that “Thug Passion” isn’t poetry?

  3. thanks, j. i’ve been so tongue-tied in my frustration with the “sanctity of marriage will be eroded” argument that it’s nice to read a clear articulation of why the reverend falwell et al need to get thwacked with the logic stick.

  4. Jason says:

    Your wife masks healthy food within seemingly unhealthy packages too Marc?

    We’re both very lucky men.

    Dave – the main problem there, of course, is that side of the argument is a religious articulation, not a legal one. Religious arguments won’t care that Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy laws, which was really the only way to deny legal marriage rights to homosexuals (by making consummation of the marriage criminal). Remember, if God wanted gays, he would’ve made Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve. Or, at least, so a Falwell-esque doctrine goes, right? Doctrine, however, really has nothing to do with logic at all. And, though I *certainly* disagree with such an assertion, I don’t think the government has any more right to force religious institutions/leaders to perform (or agree with) gay marriages any more than I believe that it has the right to prevent civil gay marriages.

    As to the calls for constitutional amendments defining marriage – last time I checked, we were working with a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Wrongs. Almost more than anything else in recent history, I would find the addition of an amendment designated to specifically restrict the rights of a particular population a sure sign that this country, not the economy, was in recession.

  5. dave says:

    I had kind of latched on to this observation: “I mean, the court isn’t saying that Tony, who lives down the street, must divorce his wife and summarily marry a man, and his wife a woman.” There is, in much of the sound and fury about gay marriage, a faulty argument about cause (without much appeal to religious tradition). Just yesterday, I heard Stanley Kurtz (a National Review contributing editor) insist that there is some correlation between European acceptance of gay marriage and an increase in divorce, single parenting, etc. (we are too assume, I guess, that those are all bad things) (my source, by the way, is Morning Edition — Rev. Falwell, ostensibly in an effort to seem secularly savvy, is perfectly willing to make the same argument about the quantitative decay gay marriage allegedly fosters.

    I WISH these folks would acknowledge the distinctions between ethics, sociology, the law, and theological prescription. Sadly, my hopes are not up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.