Saturday, June 14, 2008

Anna Quindlen on Marriage

Love Wins!
Scream, shout, jump up and down. No matter. The gay-marriage issue is over and done with. The upshot: love won.

Do read it all here ... but here's my favorite quote. (And thanks, Missy, for pointing this one out!)

"Here's what I don't understand: is there so much love and commitment in the world that we can afford, as a society, to be contemptuous of some portion of it? If two women in white want to join hands in front of their families and friends and vow to love and honor one another until they die, the only reasonable response to that is happy tears, awed admiration and societal approval. And—this part is just personal opinion—one of those big honking KitchenAid mixers with the dough hook."

And let the people say, AMEN!


Diane M. Roth said...

Hey! I have one of those!

Jim said...

You're welcome!


Elizabeth Kaeton said...

Anna Quindlen totally rocks (and so do you, 'Missy')

RonF said...

Is Ms. Quindlen aware that there's a Constitutional Amendment on California's ballot in November? Seems to me she's a bit quick to call the game over.

uffda51 said...

I’m sure Ms. Quindlen, like the rest of us, has heard about the proposed amendment, backed by conservatives, those good folks who want government to stay out of our private lives. We’re also aware of the money that will be pouring in from out of state in an effort to get the bigots to the voting booths. I somehow don’t think that the couples whose civil rights hang in the balance view all of this as a “game.” I do think that most California voters view the desire of any couple to “vow to love and honor one another until they die” as something to celebrate. I also think that most voters feel that enshrining bigotry in the state constitution is unacceptable.

RonF said...

If people want the government to stay out of their private lives, they shouldn't invite it in by asking it to give official sanctions and privileges to their relationships. In a democracy, the public has a right to choose what kind of relationships the state will favor and which it will not. And while many things go into a marriage, love, being not particularly quantifiable, is not something mentioned in the marriage statutes and is not among the reasons that the state uses to judge fitness of a relationship for marriage.

Regarding money; tell me, is there any out-of-state money coming into California to support opposition of adopting the proposed amendment? I doubt that either side's hands are clean on that.