Butterfly Cauldron

So, these are Not Very Good photos of my engagement ring, but they're the best I have at the moment. My camera is apparently a piece of crap that needs to be replaced and so I had to take these with my phone. Oh well.



I like this one. See my bunny in the background?



Ok, so the center stone is a garnet and there are two little diamonds on either side. The band is white gold. Is very nice, even though this picture doesn't really show that. Boo cameras!



Also, Rain has absolutely nothing to do with this ring, but she wanted everyone to know she approves. Or maybe it's that she wants pets. Hrm....

Labels: engagement, good news, happyhappy, marriage, Rain

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage Commercial

Also? I love this video.

Labels: bisexuality, homosexuality, marriage, stupid people

Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Read more here.

Suddenly, I feel happy. Not that we plan on moving to Iowa, but it did just become a state that looks much better in our job search for Emmy.

Labels: marriage

Emmy and I have decided to get married -- so throw the confetti already!

I'm beginning work on the immigration paperwork this weekend. As soon as we can get it filed -- and pay the $500 it costs to apply! -- it should take about four months to process and, barring no problems, she could be in the country by July. That gives us four months to get married on a fiance visa, so we're planning for the end of September/first of October. Exact date will be posted as soon as it's pinned down.

We've decided on getting married in New Orleans, because we both love it so. I've tracked down a little chapel in the Quarter. For $300, you get the chapel for an hour, a violinist at your disposal and a celebrant to do the ceremony. We're thinking morning weeding, then a nice brunch at a nearby restuarant. We'll rent the courtyard for a few hours, have food, dancing, some presents and just general happiness. Then, the rest of the afternoon can be spent rummaging around the Quarter having fun in New Orleans.

That's the good stuff.

Now, for the bad.

I have to tell my family. I told my brother via IM this morning. He's not terribly happy. He says that this 'makes my heart hurt a little'. Because he didn't expect me to marry someone like Emmy. Well, neither did I. I didn't go looking for an Australian trans woman, but when you meet someone you can build a life with, that loves you and supports you and understands you, that shares your values and makes you feel like all those things you'd given up on are possible again -- what kind of idiot turns their back on that? It's uncommon and when you find it, you hold on to it.

He says that my niece Kadyn will not understand this, and he worries about her because she loves me so much. Well, I love her too. I didn't think I could actually love a child as much as I love her. It's a strange, strange bond. But it's not going to be hard for her. How hard is it for her to know that Aunt Suzan's friend Emily lives with her now? We won't be making out in front of her, you know. Regardless of who I was partnered with, I wouldn't do that. She's not going to care. She's going to go 'Oh. Okay. Can we go play with all your paints now?' Emmy's just one more person to shower her with love and presents. It's not going to be weird for her.

He kept saying 'You're my sister and I love you' -- which is very strange, because my brother hasn't told me he loved me in...ever, probably. I don't know how my parents are going to take the news either.

I'm calling my mother tonight. I've decided I'm just going to tell her. This is the plan. You can be involved if you want to be, that's entirely up to you. They're going to have to take some time to get used to the idea, I know. I'm pretty sure my mother will come around and I'm pretty sure my brother will too. My dad? I have no idea. I mean....if they don't want the rest of the family to realize we're married, fine. Whatever. If they just want people to know that we're living together, fine. We won't be making out in front of people, for gods sake. But I love her and frankly, I'm tired of feeling so exhausted and worn out over something that is GOOD NEWS!

Emmy's entire fracking family wants to come to our weeding! Her mother, father, two brothers, sister and at least one cousin are already coming. They're going to come up with $12k to get the whole family over here. They're all really excited for us. My family? They feel like it's a horribe tragedy.

So, here's the thing. I'm not letting my happiness get stolen. I'm GETTING MARRIED! I have to plan a weeding! I have to file out immigration paperwork! I have to find a caterer in New Orleans who will make me a bunny-shaped cheesecake for the weeding! I have to find a restuarant with a nice courtyard for us to rent! I have to find a dress! And shoes! And pick an attendant! We need announcements! We need to compile registries! I have six, maybe seven months to plan a fun, unconventional weeding! Screw everyone who cannot get on-board with my happiness.

Labels: family, good news, happyhappy, immigration, marriage

'What God has joined together, let no man put assunder.' -- Traditional Protestant Marriage Vows


"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Labels: bisexuality, marriage

Some people just don't get it, really. Gay marriage is not a threat to..well, anything..but certainly not to religious freedom. No one is asking any church to recognize gay marriages. No one is legislating that. And hey, you know what? No one is saying that religious nuts can't say all the nasty things they want about gay people -- even if it makes my skin crawl.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Religious conservative leaders, sensing declining alarm over same-sex marriage, are warning that the debate over homosexuality has prompted attacks on religious freedom.
By expanding the discussion from marriage to religious expression, social conservatives say they will reconnect with religious voters and religious leaders who don’t necessarily view same-sex unions as a threat.

Ah, I see. Because they won't respond to your carrot anymore, it's time to...lie? Hear that sound? That Baby Jesus crying.

Perkins and others are building a case file of anecdotes where they say religious people have spoken out against gay marriage only to be punished. Perkins specifically cited the decision by Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich in June to fire his appointee to the Washington area transit board after the board member referred to homosexuals as “persons of sexual deviancy.”
The board member, Robert J. Smith, said he was expressing his personal beliefs as a Roman Catholic.
The subject of religious expression will be the main theme of an Oct. 15 gathering in Boston of conservative religious and political leaders that will be broadcast to churches nationally.

Let's see...was the man speaking as a private citizen? Or was he speaking in his capacity as a representative of the state? Because those are two very different things. If he was just hanging out with friends, having a few drinks or whatever and makes his comment (stupid as it is) well...whatever. But something in me doubts that's what happened. If it was, there wouldn't be a reporter around to hear it. And so, I have a feeling, he made this comment in some public forum where he was clearly identifiable as a state rep. Which means, yeah, that's not acceptable speech. Because you're functioning as a representative of the government, not as a private individual. These people would like to argue there's no distinction, but come on. If I'm writing a story for the newspaper about pro-lifers and I call them "forced breeders" because that's my personal belief, are they gonna let that go? No, they're not. And they shouldn't, because it is my obligation as a journalist not to let my personal beliefs color my reporting. Now, if I say on this blog, as a private individual, that pro-lifers are all moronic, egomanical, force-childbirth idiots -- well, sorry. That's me speaking as a private individual, not as a professional. There are lines to these things and anyone involved in any kind of public life better know that and respect it or get the fuck outta public life.

So, basically, Perkins (who is from Louisiana, of course. The man ran for governor and my parents voted for him. But they're not fundamentalists!!) is finding he can't get any more mileage out of the anti-gay marriage hubub and is looking for ways to lie and spin to scare people into voting against their best interests this November. Blah.

Labels: fundies, homosexuality, marriage, religion

Marriage has come up on a couple of blogs I read and it got me thinking. They're talking about marriage over at Feministing and Pandagon, among other places. One of the questions to come up is -- are you getting pressure to marry?

And I used to. I really did. My family was all about me finding a man and settling down, even after my baby brother got married. (He got married at 23, for gods sake!). And they were always 'well, you know, when you have a baby of your own...' whenever I expressed a desire NOT to have children. They just went on and on about it....and then, suddenly, they stopped. Just cold stop. I haven't heard a word about marriage or children from my family in nearly two years. Since I turned 30.

So, I'm wondering, do they just assume I've hit my expiration date? That now that I'm over 30, well, I won't be getting married or reproducting even if I want to?

I don't really think that's the case, but....I don't know. Everyone in my family was married well before they hit 30. And we are Southern, which has its own baggage for women past 30. I like to believe they finally just got it. They finally just realized, 'Hey, she's been saying since she was 12 that she didn't want to get married or have children. Do you think she actually meant it?'

Amanda over at Pandagon also brings up the social pressures, outside of family, on women who marry. I think she's a bit extreme, believing there's no way for a woman to opt-out of the cycle and still marry, but I do take her point. It's one of the reasons I've been resistant to marriage my whole life. Given the way our society prescribes the proposal, the wedding, the spousal roles, it really does put women in a position of subserviance, even if the man she marries isn't into power trips. I felt that, instinctively, as a child, even though my parents have a remarkably equal marriage. (Particularly for people in their faith, it's amazing how equal it really is and how utterly feminist my father is. But gods help me if I ever told him that. I think my father would pass out if I told him he's a feminist.) Inside my home, my parents were equals. Outside? Well, I noticed that my mother was always referred to as Lee's Wife or Zan's Mother. I noticed how people just assumed she was the one who did all the housework (She was, alas, for quite awhile. But my father had a job that took him out of the house for over half the time so she took on a lot more responsiblity than usual.) They assumed she would adjust her schedule for him, that she'd just do whatever he wanted her to do. Why? Because she was the Wife.

I never wanted anyone to call me that. I never, ever wanted anyone to assume I'd just turn over my life to someone else. And, being the stubborn and completely-incapable-of-keeping-my-opinion-to-myself girl that I was, I announced that. Loudly and often. Did I want a boyfriend? No. (Well, I did. But not on the terms I had available to me.) Did I want a husband? No, I did not. Did I want a baby? Hell no! What I wanted was to get good grades, go to college, earn my degree and live my life on my terms.

Thing is, my parents always encouraged me to do just that. Sure, they wanted me to get married too, but they were almost as insistant as I was that I was going to go to college and get my degree and be able to take care of myself, dammit. Part of that was they got married extremely young. My mother was 17 and my dad was 19. They had me when mom was 20, and my brother was born 18-months later. They had it really rough starting out and they wanted better for us. And never, ever, did either of them suggest I couldn't do what I wanted because I was a girl. (Partially because they honestly believed that, partially because they didn't want to piss me off.)

So, my parents have this amazingly equal marriage. So does my brother, come to think of it. Both of them subvert gender roles in their own ways. My brother is much more willing to do his share of the housework and spends lots of time with his daughter. He's not one of those men who 'babysit' their own children. So, I've got this solid image of equal partnership and I know it can work. So, what's my hangup?

It's that social thing. I know that, should I ever get married, I wouldn't marry a man who would see me as anything but his equal and full partner. I also know that it won't matter how we see each other, in the eyes of society (especially down here in Southern Jesusland) I'm always going to be the lesser partner. People will assume I have to be manipulative to get my husband to do what I want. They'll assume I make demands on him that are unreasonable, but 'that's just what women do and really, you can't live without 'em'.

I'm finding, as I get older, that what society thinks of me and my relationships matters less and less. I haven't been able to completely shake myself free of that fear/pressure/whatever you want to call it. I'm at the point where I can see a time, maybe in the distant future or maybe not so far away, where I'll be able to. It feels like a big step to me, the realization that -- maybe I could handle being married. I'm still not sure, honestly. And I'd have to be with someone who understood that. Someone honest and authentic, who doesn't buy into all the romantic claptrap we're sold.

A huge diamond ring? Why? Buy me something simple. Silver, with amber or pearls or orange topaz. Or a simple band with interesting etching. The rest of that money can go for a downpayment on a house. A huge wedding? Why? Let's elope, make it a combo wedding/honeymoon and save some money. Which can be used for a downpayment on a house. Or whatever we decide to spend it on.

I'm a thoroughly non-traditional girl. Give me a beach at sunset, let me go barefoot, throw some flowers in my hair and bring out the JP. We'll have a bar-b-que afterward and dance around the fire. My friends, my family and that's it. Simple, easy and perfect. And none of that holier-than-thou religious crap either.

Then again, maybe I have reached my expiration date after all. Which isn't so bad. At least my parents don't seem hurried to get me married anymore.

Labels: marriage

If not this particular case, then one similar. That's the problem with having different marriage/civil union laws across the country. Those states that have outlawed them are going to say they don't have to recognize another state's union/marriage. Which is bullshit, because any straight couple married pretty much anywhere else, not just in another state, is recognized in this country -- provided they've got documentation. I mean, we don't go around telling Canadians they're not married when they come for a visit. Or the Brits. Or Africans. Or...well, anyone. So long as they're straight. Bastards. Although -- this current ruling is a hopeful sign. Until the appeal is filed anyway.

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — The state Supreme Court ruled Friday that Vermont courts, and not those in Virginia, have exclusive jurisdiction over a case involving two women battling for custody of a child they had while they were in a lesbian relationship.

The unanimous ruling conflicts with a series of decisions in Virginia, where courts ruled the state’s anti-gay marriage laws controlled the case.

Justice John Dooley wrote that Vermont civil union laws govern the women’s 2003 separation and subsequent child custody disagreement because they were legally joined in a civil union there in 2000.

“This is a straightforward interstate jurisdictional dispute over custody, and the governing law fully supports the Vermont court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction and refuse to follow the conflicting Virginia visitation order,” Dooley wrote.

The bullshit Virginia is trying to pull gives lie to the "think about the children" line these guys always use. Yes, let's think about the children. How about this little girl who has known both her mommies all her life. How much good is it going to do her to cut one of them out of her life? For no reason? There's nothing here to indicate that the woman is abusive or neglectful or in any way not a fit mother. The problem is she's a mommy and oops, baby's already got one of those. Sorry. Thanks for playing.

“It’s a classic conflict between two states over same-sex unions,” said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which is representing Lisa Miller-Jenkins, one of the women in the dispute. “The real question there is whether or not a state can have its own policy that does not accept same-sex unions or whether they have to accept the union of another state.”

And that's why it's going to end up before the Supremes. Because yeah, I think you do have to recognize other state's unions. It's legal in this state to get married at 16. So, if a 16 year old gets married here and then moves to somewhere where you've got to be 18 to be married, are they automatically single again? No. Because states recognize each other's straight unions. This has caused problems in the past, as in cases where 14 year olds ran off to Georgia to get married, against their parents wishes. It was a big deal in the news not that long ago and ended up with Georgia changing it's laws? Why? Because, historically, states recognize each other's marriages.

How hard is that, really? Of course, that doesn't mean the zealots are going to rule that way. Who cares that there are decades, maybe centuries, of precidents. Toss those out when they aren't convienent and say you're following the rule of law. Bah.

Labels: children, court rulings, homosexuality, marriage

Maybe that's unfair? Anyway, Wash. decided to uphold it's ban on same-sex marriage today. Not the most surprising thing, but I was hopeful it might have been struck down. At least from where I'm sitting in the Louisiana suburb of Jesusland, Wash. seems very progressive and with-it. Then again, if California won't legalize same-sex marriage, I don't know who'll be next.

Three of the justices in the majority, however, invited the state Legislature to take another look at the gay marriage ban’s effect on same-sex couples.

“Given the clear hardship faced by same-sex couples evidenced in this lawsuit, the Legislature may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state,” wrote Justice Barbara Madsen, with Justice Charles Johnson and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander concurring.

The two other justices in the majority, James Johnson and Richard Sanders, agreed with the outcome but more actively opposed gay marriage.

Johnson wrote that the Legislature had “a compelling governmental interest in preserving the institution of marriage, as well as the healthy families and children it promotes. This conclusion may not be changed by mere passage of time or currents of public favor and surely not changed by courts.”

So, would now be the time for same-sex allies in Washington to be petitioning for a change of laws? And what's this bit about promoting marriage for the children? Gay people don't have children? Really? That'll be news to the lesbian/gay families I know!

The sad part is the article mentions that there are 45 states that have gay-marriage bans on the books. Most of those statues have never been challenged. So, really, this is even sadder. So far, Mass. is the only sane state in the nation, but it's kind expensive to live there.

I know some people make the arguement that pushing for gay marriage is too polarizing going into an election, particularly one we really need to win to have any chance of stopping this free fall President Frat Boy has put us in. There's some merit to that line of thought, but. . .it's like suffrage, really. If we wait until the "right time" to push for it, we'll be waiting forever. Although, at the moment, I don't think there are any more court challenges going on, so having this happen now, instead of on the eve of the November elections, is probably a good thing. I'd hate to give the neo-cons any more reason to get their people to the polls.

As I've said before, I'm not really a marrying sort of girl myself. At least, I don't think I am. Who knows, that could change later. But denying someone the right to marry because they want to marry someone of their own gender? That's clear discrimination and shows an utter lack of knowledge of the actually history of marriage.

Labels: court rulings, homosexuality, marriage

Molly has an excellent post on the benefits of modern marriage to women. And she's got some good points. I just...I have issues with marriage personally and I'm not sure even the promise of an equitable divorce can coax me out of them.

My marriage issues are kind of strange, I suppose, given that practically everyone in my family has a history of marriage success. There have been exactly two divorces in my family and both were caused by an abusive spouse. So, I've got lots of examples of good, functioning, equitable marraiges. And I still can't bring myself to take that step.

I came close once. I was vastly in love with a man I dated in college. I could see the two of us together longterm (and well, we were. For nearly seven years.) and yet...and yet I just couldn't do it. He knew that too. He told me once, if he thought I'd say yes, he'd have asked me to marry him after our first year together. But he never did, because he knew I'd say no. We lived together for several years though. And that, maybe, is what really sealed my opposition to marriage.

See, I was in school full time and working, so I made all the money. And he was in school full time, but not working. So, he was home a lot more than I was. And it always seemed to me that I was paying for everything. I paid the rent, I had the car, I bought groceries, I paid for our nights out and for renting videos. Hell, I even paid for all the birth control. (Which, frankly, I will continue to do. If I pay for it, I know we've got it, so none of this "Oh, I don't have a condom. Just this once won't hurt..." shit.) It built a great deal of resentment in me. He would get to be home while I was working and he'd read or watch tv or play on the computer or hang out with friends and...the dishes wouldn't get done, the laundry wouldn't get done, the vacuuming wouldn't get done...and I'd come home and he'd be all snuggly and kissy and I was just so tired and pissed off that nothing had gotten done at the house....And when I finally got on him enough to get a job, he found one in another town, which meant he had to move and that really spelled the end for us. Because I got my life back. I got my freedom to do what I wanted back. I could do the dishes at midnight if I wanted. Or I could skip them. If I wanted, it wasn't a forced thing.

And then, I started to get really, really sick. And he wasn't there. He wanted to be, I think, but he was working in another town and could only come up on the weekends. And at first, it was fine. He'd take care of me and we'd be together and it was okay. Then it got to where...he wanted to be with our friends, not staying home taking care of a very sick girlfriend. And there goes more resentment, more anger, more certainity that this whole relationship thing wasn't for me. Eventually, he moved to Texas and that was it for us.

It took me a few years to get over that, but I did. And I meet another man who I just loved. I can't explain how much I loved this man. It was...it was scary, actually. He was great, he understood me and he didn't care that I was sick. It was amazing. But as good as it was, we also fought like crazy. No one has ever made me feel as incredible or as awful as he did. There was no middle ground with us, we were either on top of the world or tearing each other's throats out. I know now, it was a very unhealthy relationship, but at the time...at the time it was like a drug. We'd finally reached a sort of even balance when he moved. Literally left the country. He was originally from Europe and he just went home. Just...gone. And he didn't even tell me he was leaving. No goodbye, nothing. Just, one day he was there, the next he was gone. He sent me an email when he got home, saying it would have been too hard for him to tell me goodbye in person.

Seriously. Fucking hell. Just...poof. One day it's 'you're my best friend' the next it's 'Hey, anyone seen K?' Arg.

So, after that, I kinda decided this relationship thing? It doesn't work for me. (Actually, there was at least one other man who did something similar to me, but two examples should do, no?)

So, for me, the thought of a long-term/marriage relationship is possibly the most frightening thing on the planet. In the end, material things don't matter that much to me. I can get another car, find another apartment, get new furniture, pay off credit cards, whatever. But the emotional damage a divorce/breakup can do is just...I know I can survive them, but how many times should I be expected to?

And yes, I realize not all men are this way. Not all women are, either. And I believe, should I meet someone that I really felt drawn to, that I'd be able to have some kind of relationship. But the thought of taking vows? It just....I don't know that I could.

Because after the vows comes the expectations. Where are we going to live? When are we having children? (Uh, never. Sorry.) What happens when I start to get sick again? What happens when/if I get so sick I can't work? How are we going to pay the bills? How are we going to blend our families? What happens when my father decides he hates him? (And he will. I have yet to find anyone good enough for me, according to my father.) What happens when his mother decides she hates me?

I know, intellectually, that all those things can be worked out. I know, because I've seen it. But I haven't been able to live that sort of relationship. I wish I could, but I don't seem to be able to manage it.

Marriage to me feels like a trap. It feels like I'd be giving up who I am to become A Wife. My poor mother...for the longest time, she was always 'Zan's mother' or 'Lee's wife'. She wasn't herself, ya know? People didn't seem to know her name or what she did or what she liked. She was always seen in reference to someone else. That was so very unfair. And I thought, no one is ever going to do that to me. No one is ever going to not know my name, not like that. I'm never going to live my life for someone else.

And yet, my parents have a happy, stable marriage. They've been married for 35 or 36 years. So clearly, they know something I don't. My brother has been married for probably 8 years now. They're happy. My paternal grandparents were married until my grandfather died. They seemed happy. (Of course, my grandmother is perfectly happy on her own too.) So, I don't know. It's such a deeply personal issue, it seems almost wrong to bring political views into it. (There's certainly room to critque the historical problems with marriage for women. Even critique modern problems too. Maybe it's me, but my objections to marriage, for myself, are much more personal than that.)

So, where does that leave me? Am I fated to be single for the rest of my life? On one hand, I don't really mind that too much. I'm happy enough and I can certainly take care of myself. On the other hand, it would be nice to have someone to come home to. It would be nice to have someone I could count on when I get sick. But marriage isn't a guarantee of those things, it's not some magic pill like a lot of people seem to believe. So, I just don't know.

Labels: marriage, relationships, sex