Election and Marriage

I voted weeks ago and managed to mostly put the election out of my mind until I started watching the returns while doing cardio at the gym. The results came in almost exactly as you would expect if you'd been looking at the polling sites, and I was resigned to either of the major party candidates winning, so I didn't have any emotional reaction -- actually the most depressing bit was losing all 11 state anti-gay-marriage votes. It's clear in hindsight that nobody (including me) likes having basic family law messed with by what is perceived to be outside forces -- the voters weren't so much anti-gay (though there is still plenty of that) as pro-local control, with the effective propaganda line "don't let unaccountable judges change YOUR marriage!" carrying the day.

What I'd like to see is a longer-term discussion of marriage leading to reforms for everyone -- more choice in the underlying legal obligations to go with the widely varying lifestyles we lead today. trapezebear has a good post up about making the best of the current situation. Monday I had to undertake the symbolically unpleasant step of dissolving our domestic partnership, which required a notarized form sent by certified mail to the Secretary of State of California. On Jan. 1st, the dissolution that took an hour or two will suddenly require a court case -- just like for straight people, but without any of the tax benefits or Federal recognition. Here's an article on the considerations, which are forcing many current DPs to terminate the legal relationship established earlier because of possible loss of benefits, application of community property and support rules, and the loss of freedom to change your arrangements privately.

The rending of garments and gnashing of teeth visible here is painful to watch. Unfortunately too many people live in a bubble of "right-thinking" people who only agree with them, and can't imagine any reasonable person voting for the other candidate. I grew up in a red state (Missouri), fled to a blue state (Massachusetts), and understand pretty well where most people are coming from, so I never get sucked into a "team" that rah-rahs itself into a quasi-religious fervor about what is actually possible in politics.

Michele Catalano wrote a nice piece on the aftermath. If you're feeling low today, it might help you feel a bit better.

The really, really bad guys

We humans have a dismaying tendency to force reality into a narrative to make sense of it. Today's most popular LJ narrative includes as Bad Guys the Bush/Republican Party forces and right-wing religious types here in the US. But for a little perspective, contemplate the small differences between the polarized sides of the US debate compared to the huge gulf that separates us from the "fundamentalist" (really reactionary) Islamic groups, as shown by the largely ignored events yesterday in Amsterdam.

The conundrum of a tolerant nation confronted by an ideology that is by its very nature intolerant of diversity -- and intends to violently impose its doctrine on everyone if it is allowed to do so -- is ours as well. The Enlightenment understanding of the need for religious toleration and a separation of church and state does not exist in much of the world. The shrinking of the world through technology and communication means the remaining differences between cultures have to be reconciled so that we can live in peace. And those who wantonly murder others in furtherance of their agenda will have to be destroyed.