Monday, October 6, 2008

Talking (and an apology long past due)

I wrote this: "Check back with me on Monday. I might talk about Toddler beauty pageants, or Vice Presidents, or moms who don't know that their daughters understand Spanish so they think they can talk about them on the phone and say things about how their daughters are lazy, or my thoughts on Prop 102, or project runway unfairness, or that cute baby deer that died, or baby showers."

And I don't want to write about any of these things.

So, because I hate myself, I'm going to write about all of them.

Toddler beauty pageants: Those fake teeth they use are called flippers. I know this because I watch everything I can about toddler beauty pageants. I know all about Pro Am, and the appropriate length of skirt. I know how to make my daughter's eyes look glassier. I know when to remove the curlers. I know what the judges are looking for, and what they're not (I'm looking at you Aja, from the TLC doc From Toddlers to Tiaras). In fact, I could probably put Lennon in a pageant and win the Ultimate Grand Supreme Crown. My obsession with the creepiness has turned me into an expert. Which begs the question: could I also coach midget wrestling? Let's hope that never comes up.

Vice Presidents: I once took a test that told me I was a libertarian. Palin and Biden pretty much confirmed that for me.

Mom...blah blah blah Spanish blah lazy: I didn't want to type that whole sentence out again, so maybe she has a point. Exhibit B: She had no clue I took four years of college-level Spanish. Was I too lazy to tell her, or do we just have bad communication? The real question is, as long as she thinks I'm a lazy whitey, and she just accepts that the house will be a mess when she gets home, why mess up a good thing?

Prop 102: I want to admit something, but I'm REALLY ashamed of myself, so I kind of DON'T want to admit it. But I will. Because admitting I was wrong is something I want people to attribute to my character. Okay, here goes: I once voted n favor of the YesForMarriage prop, *deep breath, anticipating the reactions from both sides*

I'm going to explain. I thought that, because I belonged to a church that upheld marriage as a holy union, it was my responsibility to "protect" it. You guys, I say this in the way Abraham Lincoln probably said, "Oh holy crap, I used to own people too." I feel pretty sick about it. I look around my neighborhood at all the Yes on 102 signs, and I want to tell them that their marriage is no less sacred because two men or two women who love each other also want the same rights to be viewed as legally married. Not long ago, I thought what the sign bearers thought: Not that gays don't "deserve" marriage, but that my Church was asking me to vote a certain way, and I was, as a faithful member, going to follow. Since that vote, I have felt ILL about my choice. I know that my Church is not Out To Hurt Gays, and that the call to protect marriage is based on the Belief that God has clearly defined marriage in his Church as between a man and a woman. But here's the thing guys... it's one thing to define marriage within your own religion, but it's QUITE another to define it for a whole state or nation.

I don't believe that government should be making decisions based on religious beliefs. And so my vote will reflect that in this election. I apologize to those whose lives were affected by my vote two years ago, and I hope you understand and forgive me for my mistake. If a vote comes up that says members of my church shouldn't be allowed in town anymore, I don't blame you if you vote in favor to prove a point. I'll pack my wagon and be on my way.

project runway unfairness: kenley sucks

the baby deer: sad

baby showers: didn't use to be fun, but this weekend was different. Thanks for the good conversation and for keeping clothespin out of it.

12 comments:

Keiko & Jeff said...

Whenever I talk with someone about gay marriage it inevitably comes up that "God didn't want it to be that way." To which I ask about separation of church and state. And then the other person throws out the whole "but our founding fathers..." And then I say, "Yah, I know, Thomas Jefferson coined the term seperation of church and state. And what about the whole leaving England to escape religious persecution..."

Yeah. It's funny how we don't learn from the past.

Renee said...

Oh Keiko THANK YOU for commenting. I felt like I might have silenced even the crickets.

Hi everyone. My name is Renee. I say controversial things.

Perhaps I should say this, so that nobody thinks I just called them a slave owner. It's ME feeling sick about MY vote, and I was sick about MY OWN hypocrisy.

What you do in the voting booth or the bedroom or your church or whatever is all you. I plan to keep voting in a way that reflects that sentiment.

I am not apologizing for my post, but in the future I'll probably to stick to baby deer.

diane said...

Don't stick to baby deer; who would we laugh at then?
I hear you about the whole gay marriage/religion thing. I know we are in the minority in our religion because we have been asked to support these amendments. Personally, although I still believe in our faith and will continue to practice, I disagree with being told we have to vote a certain way. I for one think that the civil union of marriage is totally between two people regardless of what their gender. But I also believe that the Holy union of marriage (and the marriages performed and sanctioned within our religious beliefs) are for a man and a woman. Basically, I believe how I believe and figure everyone else can choose to believe what they want.
That being said, I am still way prolife.
And I would love to watch midget wrestling with you.

Katy said...

No judgement from me Renee. I understand why you voted that way when you did and i understand why you changed your mind.

Luann said...

I voted against the propositions two years ago and I will vote against it again this time around. I don't like the government telling people how they are supposed to live their lives. I'm surprised my religion supports it because I think it goes against its teachings about agency.
I wonder if the vote is a way for people to let the world know they don't like gays. Its a lot easier to make the government enforce their beliefs than doing something like boycotting TV shows that showcase it (ie Will and Grace, Queer eye for the straight guy, all those design shows with gays designers). Ellen is just dang funny and why should I have to boycott her show just because I don't agree with her lifestyle?
My question is, if they manage to legalize gay marriage in all states, will polygamy come back? (not that I want it too. It just seems to fall under the same argument). Our country has been telling people how they should live for a long time.

diane said...

Amen to luann.

Renee said...

Amen to Diane's Amen. Luann, where were you two years ago when I needed someone to help me not to vote like a crazy person?

Luann said...

I was keeping my comments to myself, too afraid I might offend someone. Its nice to find people who think like I do.

Mama's Place said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sarah Beau Bera said...

R - I want to thank you for your thoughts on 102. I have been on the fence about it. I am fine with the definition of marriage being made more specific. I would love it if after it is added to the constitution the polys in Colo. City are scared straight. I don't want to call the union of same sex couples "marriage". However, I want to call it something. I want it to be recognized by our gov. so that the same rights and privs. can be extended to couples of the same sex. I never felt that my marriage was "sanctioned" (not sure about word choice) by the gov. Instead I have always thought of my marriage as sanctioned by God. My fear is that if I vote Y on 102 I will be contributing to the precursor that will prevent my sister and her partner of more than a decade from obtaining rights that should be theirs. And so I am voting N. The end.

Jillsywillsy said...

Wa-wa-WAIT! This is about Gay Marraige!!???

I thought it was about finally stopping polygamy once and for all. Do you know that in the late 1800's it went all the way to the Supreme Court? We almost had to recognize that "unnatural" union as a legal marraige. What freaks!

Oh, the irony.

Scarlet said...

I personally think that if the opposers of gay marraige are using the excuse that they are protecting the sanctity of marraige then we should take a long look at marraige in general. If the sanctity is the only concern than people who divorce should be banned from marraige because they failed the first time and don't deserve a second chance. Especially Britney Spears since she had a 55 hour marraige and that ridiculous Kevin Federline one so she is a 2x loser and should definitely not get another go if gay couple who is truly committed doesn't get one. I think that they deserve to share each others medical benefits so if that means that it needs to be labeled marraige then so be it. That is all I have to say about that.