I was in the middle of Kansas for my cousin’s wedding this past weekend. I flew in Friday amongst all the Midwest thunderboppers, which delayed my initial flight from the night before, the connecting flight's landing, and my subsequent arrival in Kansas. Luckily, I didn’t see any witches, or houses on top of witches.
My cousin Dorothy's wedding was early Saturday afternoon, so I had made an appointment to have my hair done before it. Initially, I told the hair stylist that I would like to do some sort of up-do, but that I’d had surgery on my head which caused two receded areas...areas to avoid. She never asked why. She did ask me if I had ever seen Eddie Izzard, though.
“Isn’t he a cross dresser?” I asked, semi-playing along with her whole inquiry. I don’t think she knew I was TS, she simply thought he was based in San Francisco and knew that I was from there as well.
We also talked about how she had moved out of Kansas City to the current town because “KC was too conservative, and this town was much more liberal.” I told her that I, too, sometimes feel like a blue dot in a sea of red.
My cousin’s wedding was early that afternoon. She wore a beautiful white dress. The actual wedding wasn’t that long with a reading, a song, and the exchange of vows. The one thing I really noticed, though, is how much the priest was pushing the heterosexual agenda.
Yes, the heterosexual agenda. I don’t blame my cousin at all, she was just wanting a priest to marry her and her fiance in order to be legally wed.
What is the heterosexual agenda, though? It is a movement to keep marriage only for heterosexual couples, allowing only them to have children, allowing only them to visit loved ones in the hospital, providing benefits only to other heterosexual partners, and keeping anyone else from getting married.
OK, yes...I am being sarcastic. I just get tired of people always yelling and screaming about the 'homosexual agenda'.
This next paragraph is a combination of things I have heard from friends and some of my own independent thought (albeit not very much):
If marriage is a religious institution, then the government should not decide if one can marry another of the same sex...it comes down to the church or religion from which the couple seeks a marriage. This is a matter of the separation of church and state. The state should only be able to issue a legal license for one to get married. There should just be general requirements on it, such as being over 18 and not being blood relatives closer than cousins, etc. The church should then be the one to decide if they will marry a couple based on their beliefs. There are plenty of religions that are against same-sex marriages, but there are some that accept it as part of human nature. If one does not choose to have a religious marriage, then there should be civil unions enabling those people with the same rights as religiously wed couples.
Of course, providing both wedding licenses and civil union licenses creates discrimination based on what type of license one has, so everyone should simply get a domestic union license...or something.
The following day at the brunch for close family and friends, my uncle jokingly bashed my fellow “crazy Californians” as we were conversing...which is good that we were conversing since he has been relatively quiet around me the past few years.
“Wait a minute...let’s talk about Kansas and their education system (which wants to stop teaching evolution...again),” I said.
He then lowered his head as he said, “...and that darn Fred Phelps.”
“Oh yeah, him, too...he’s bothered us out in California a few times...even some of my own constituents. Doesn’t that guy have anything better to do?”
(Fred Phelps is so radical, I won’t even post a direct link to his site.)
No comments:
Post a Comment