Back, and Happy to Boot

You probably thought I forgot all about my blog. This isn't true. Blogging crosses my mind all the time, but I'm just so busy, I have a really hard time taking time out to blog when it's time I could spend writing another article for pay I always need. 

Being a freelance writer is tough; it's even tougher when you're the breadwinner with bills to pay and five mouths to feed. (Aaron and I have a dog, a cat and HE has a snake).

But, I haven't crashed yet from my day of cleaning, bill-paying and writing, so here I am.

I'm in an excellent mood thanks to the good news from the past few days: Obama and Seth Myers roasted Donald Trump at the White House Correspondent's Dinner; U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden, and the Kings are staying in Sac, at least for one more season. All of the above makes me very happy.

I know some people love Obama, some hate him, many are disappointed, blah, blah, blah. Can we all just agree that Donald Trump is a douchebag and it was awesome to watch him squirm in his chair?  

As a person of faith who is a pacifist at heart, I would have prefered that we captured and tried Osama bin Laden, but I'm a realist when it comes to the world, especially war, so I leave you with this:

I don't care if you've seen it a million times on Facebook. It's funny. If you can't laugh at that, it's time to pull the partisan stick out of your butt and lighten up.

Digging Deeper Into Digital TV Delay

Today many Americans are outraged that the U.S. House of Representatives delayed the switch to digital television until June, giving the unprepared 6.5 million households more time make sure their TVs are digital ready. Those upset about the delay think that because televisions stations have been airing commercials about the switch for a year, everyone should be prepared. "You'd have to be living under a rock to have never heard of the switch." Conservatives and liberals alike think that Americans who aren't ready don't understand the concept of personal responsibility. On the surface, this argument could almost tread water until it bumps into a deeper analysis and drowns to the bottom of the ocean like the Titanic.

I knew all about the switch to digital. Like many Americans, I'm sick of the digital transition commercials. Also like many Americans, I had cable. I was covered. Then less than a week ago, I got the nightmare call from my husband: his company would close it doors on March 30th. Insert panic and immediate budget sacrifices. Goodbye cable TV and perfect reception. Hello waiting list for government rebates on converter boxes. My household is hardly the only one having to tighten the budget belt.

The national unemployment rate is at a staggering high and continues to grow. In California, the unemployment rate is 9.3 percent, and the unemployment fund is running dry. More and more businesses close down every day, and those that stay open are laying offing workers to stay afloat. Many workers who have escaped layoffs are likely to see their hours cut, if they haven't already experienced a significantly reduced schedule. I don't have to Google the news to find examples. I see it firsthand with friends and family.

Layoffs in the media industry have been especially tough. I'm no longer surprised when another friend from college gets laid off from the news outlet they worked for. Unemployment must be filled with recent college grads with journalism or communications degrees. My best friend was recently laid off from her job with a local library. She too has a college degree. My stepfather has seen his hours cut with Safeway. He is working part-time probably for the first time in his adult life.

With the economy in such dismal state, many Americans are having to make sacrifices and cut the fat wherever possible. Doesn't it then follow that so many households are unprepared for the switch to digital TV because they were prepared until they found themselves unemployed or underemployed and cable was turned off or canceled? When it comes down to paying the mortgage or paying for cable TV, the decision is not that hard to make. Additionally, the price for cable has recently taken a pretty steep jump. For the last five years, I've always paid $25 to $30 for cable service. The same cable service I was subscribed to for $30 just two months ago has gone up to $57 before tax. Even if my husband wasn't losing his job, paying $27 more for the same service would be more than we could swing. That's an increase of over $300 a year!

I'm sure there are individuals out there who waited until the last minute to sign up for a converter box rebate when they needed one all along. That fraction can be blamed for "lacking personal responsibility." I'm not sticking up for that group. I'm sticking up for the growing number of Americans, including myself, who were prepared until the failing economy hit too close to home and sacrifices had to be made. My thanks to President Obama and the U.S. House of Representatives for understanding our situation.

Marriage, Church and State

"Today in 1893 U.S. President Benjamin Harrison declared full amnesty for Mormon polygamists. Is it the government's place to define which marriages are valid and which are not?" ~ Livejournal.com Writer's Block Prompt

"The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which "the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race" are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs."
~Hannah Arendt [Dissent, Winter 1959]

For legal reasons, it is the government's place to define which marriages are valid and which are not. A marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. The legal contract affords rights that are specific to married couples. But for most, the meaning of marriage is far more than a piece of paper signed by the couple, their witnesses and the officiant. Marriage is about love, commitment, and for many people, religious faith.

I only care that the government recognize my marriage for the legal benefits. My husband and I file joint taxes. As his spouse, I am added to my husband's medical insurance. As his wife, I am the beneficiary of his life insurance. If we have a child, we begin with the same equal rights to that child. Just because I gave birth to the child, I do not have any more legal rights to the child than my husband does. He doesn't have to prove he's the father or separately adopt the child. The child is automatically "ours." If my husband is in the hospital, which he has been once since we've been married, all I have to do is say, "I'm his wife" and I can visit him. I'm not asked for proof that I'm his wife. The words, "I'm his wife" come with power. The words, "I'm his girlfriend" or "I'm his life partner" or "I'm his domestic partner" do not have the same authority. The legal contract of a marriage gives me power. It gives our relationship validity and special rights under the law.

As important as the legal rights a marriage affords to me are, that is not why I got married. I married my husband because not only do I love him and feel he has the qualities I seek in a partner, but because I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him as his wife. I wanted to live by the teachings of our Christian faith that explain what a marriage should be.

I wanted to put God first in our marriage, always.

I don't believe a couple need get married in a church or by a religious leader for their marriage to have God at the center or to have a religious marriage. God would be just as important in my marriage if I had gotten married in the woods, by a former teacher, just as my best friend and her husband did. Still, I chose to get married in a church.

My husband and I had both always dreamed of getting married in a beautiful church, so we payed through the nose to get married in Pioneer Congregation Church, the very first Christian church built in Sacramento. I had a very religious ceremony. There were prayers, scripture readings and even a blessing.
I was able to get married in a church because I was having a traditional heterosexual wedding. Before we could marry at Pioneer, we had to complete pre-marital counseling, which we were happy to do. The pastor, Reverend Jim Truesdale, warned us from the beginning that if he did not feel we should be getting married, he would refund our money and we would not be married in his church. We were fine with that. We understood that to get married in a church, especially one that we did not attend, we had to follow the church's rules and protocol for a wedding ceremony.

If we were a homosexual couple, I believe the church would have had every right to deny us a wedding in their church. Knowing the "open and affirming" beliefs of the church, I don't think a homosexual couple would be turned away from this more liberal church, but all the same, I believe the church would have the right to do so. A church should have the right to turn away any couple, whether heterosexual or homosexual, if the church feels the couple is in conflict with church's beliefs.

That's why I think there should be two forms of marriage. I believe everyone who wants to be married should have to go through the legal process of signing a contract recognized by the government. I do not believe the government has any right to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. Two consenting homosexual adults should have the same rights under the law as two heterosexual adults.

I believe the religious ceremony and marriage should be separate from the legal marriage. Churches should be able to discriminate freely based upon the beliefs of their faith. The marriage document issued by the church should be separate from the legal document issues by the government. If a couple has a religious wedding ceremony, whether it's Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, isn't their God then the final authority over that couple's union? How can the government recognize that which belongs to religious faith?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
~U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1

Happy marriages
begin when we marry the ones we love,
and they blossom when we love the ones we marry.
~ Tom Mullen

For two people in a marriage to live together day after day is unquestionably the one miracle the Vatican has overlooked.
~Bill Cosby

*Photography by Avessa Studios