"Not all good news. We voted to give chickens rights and take human rights." The LA Times featured what I think is a disgusting photo that I won't even post here because it angers me. Along with this choice quote:

"I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.

I feel sad for California but at least 63% of voters aged 18-29 voted against it. Hopefully soon the mainstream definition of family will be expanded. And maybe that's the problem. If we want to worry about "the children" maybe we should worry about teaching them how to imbalanced-ly value a chicken's life over a human being's.

I can't help but wonder if all these issues: gay marriage; the stay-at-home/stay-at-work debate; the tortures behind the decision to have children at all and trying to combine/reconcile those decisions with career paths and/or societal perception; inflexibility of the workplace--originate from a singular core issue: that the current definition of family is outdated.

Perhaps the core issue here is that the current medicalized definition of family is too limited to realistically deal with the wide array of issues individuals face on a daily basis.

For instance in insurance concerns, instead of simply allowing children to be covered by someone's health plan because they’re automatically dependents, why not expand the choice an individual has in regards to the people in their life they’d like to cover with their insurance benefits?

Similarly, how sad is it that there are numerous childless/CFBC scholars in institutions across the country—and from what I understand, most institutions offer tuition remission for faculty's (and sometimes even staff's) children—but if a person is childfree (by choice or not), why aren’t they allowed to sponsor a child in their life with the tuition remission? My husband and I may not have children of our own, but wouldn’t it be great if I could guarantee that my nieces or nephews would have free tuition if they wanted it? Or what about sponsoring kids in the neighboring communities of the local college?

I just think the current definition of family is way too narrow to ever truly be fair—except to the people who are making money off of the narrow definition. Think about it: the current definition is an inherently survivalist/selfish one. Every family should be out for themselves instead of creating communities that mutually benefit one another.

And in light of our new President-Elect and the idea of bringing communities back together--and it wasn't just a platform, the man's campaign actually practiced what it preached.

I mean, look at the bickering even this simple post created. (My comment is at the end of it, and it's almost the same as this particular post.) But the resentment that builds between people over the decision to have children (or not to have children) is shameful. That’s a product of an inherently narrow definition of family. If it was more inclusive, then I wonder if bitterness on both sides would start to fade away and communities could be created instead.

And I wonder if we expanded the definition of family, if civil rights would grow out of that new definition.

Labels: gay marriage, narrow definition of family, politics

( 4comments )

at November 5, 2008 7:53 PM  natalia said...

I love the idea of sponsoring a student in the neighborhood. Wow. I wish universities would give their profs that option.

But really... it's all about making money, which is why universities would rather take away tuition remission for professor's children before they allow people to sponsor people who might actually need the money.

 

at November 7, 2008 7:06 PM  Lorie said...

I thought I already left this comment, but maybe I got distracted and never clicked "Say It!" before I closed the window. My apologies if two copies appear after a delay or moderation or something.

I saw this comic on Proposition 8 and thought you might enjoy it.

 

at November 7, 2008 8:48 PM  JillyDreadful said...

That was fucking amazing. Thank you so much for that.

 

at November 13, 2008 4:29 PM  natalia said...

No Scream Awards post? MISS YOU!!!!!!