Tan Their Hydes

Thank God for those godless Europeans who actually recognize that in our modern world where health care does some good, health care should be universal, without conditions, strings, or provisos. People who are well should be encouraged to stay that way, and people who are sick should be cared for until they get better and can manage, effectively, by themselves.

I am so offended that a religious lobby got their way in determining how health care is to be provided/funded (in our society those are realistically one and the same) to citizens of this country (and non-citizens as well; consider that tourists often receive health care as needed when visiting other countries). Since when do we live in a theocracy? Why should one self-proclaimed Christian group get to make decisions for the members of other Christian churches, not to mention all the non-Christians who live in this country, pay their taxes, vote their consciences, serve in the military and otherwise fulfill their duties as citizens? A whole lot of things get funded with my taxes that I don't approve of, even abhor, but I have little choice in the matter because that is the way the government has decided to spend the tax dollars. The only means I have for changing policy is to write letters, support my preferred candidates during election cycles, and VOTE!

I suppose I could get involved in some type of tax protest or civil disobedience, but I'm too concerned about the welfare of my children to go so far in rocking the boat at this time. On the other hand, I'm tired of being the radical right's doormat. I'm tired of being forced to do my part as a US citizen, while being systematically disenfranchised in my own country by a bunch of self-righteous people who seem only to peruse the Bible in order to find obscure passages to support their own agenda, while glossing over the greater message of love and forgiveness. These are the people Jesus was addressing when he said, "Love one another, as I have loved you," that is, without preconditions and unreservedly.

I suppose some could say that I am being intolerant of the intolerance of others. That could get very circular. The reality is that I do not want in any way to interfere in other people's religious beliefs or private practices, but I draw the line when it comes to the way that our central government handles the common welfare. When the decisions about the law of the land and the way tax dollars are used becomes subject to a particular religious viewpoint, then we are playing dangerously with state-imposed religion, contrary to the First Amendment of our constitution.

Have I ever had (or wanted to have) an abortion: No. Do I think abortions are reasonable safe from a health standpoint and should be a recognized and reimbursable health care option: Yes. That said, I do have some reservations. I would want to be sure that the woman involved is making the decision to have an abortion freely, without coercion from a partner or a parent or anyone else, and that she has access to supportive counseling before and after the abortion. If a woman is feeling coerced into having an abortion, I would (ideally) like her to have alternatives presented - in a non-coercive manner.

Do I want to marry another woman: No. Do I think two same-sex partners should be able to enjoy the same government protections and benefits that my husband and I do: Yes. Do I think they should be able to celebrate their commitment in a like-minded religious community, and even call it a marriage: Yes.

Now, go in peace to love and serve the world. Be the miracle.

Miscellany on a tired day

Why do the people of a state vote about whether two people can get married? This is one of those ponderous questions that keep me up at night. It's not like anyone is talking about group marriage, although, frankly, in this day of disintegrating extended families, I can see a place even for a group of people commiting to share living quarters, financial resources, and time. The only reason that there are referenda on the marriage question is that the two people involved are of the same gender. So? I often feel that I would like to have a wife, not because my intimate preferences lean that way, but because in my current living situation, I cannot seem to juggle all the hats that have been thrown my way, and it would be nice to have someone I know, care about, and can rely on, to be at home keeping house and handling some of the child care responsibilities. Of course, given my current living situation, we are edging closer to that group marriage thing. Ah, if only I could afford an au pair.

Domestic partnership in the public sector! Leave marriage as a religious sacrament, subject to religious canons. If a same-sex couple wants to commit, let them. They are not asking everyone into their bedroom. If they want to be married, they should join a religious community that accepts same-sex marriage. If two people want to dissolve their partnership, homosexual or heterosexual, they should get a divorce. There! Problem solved! Now, let's move on.....

Chris Christie was elected governor. I don't much care for Jon Corzine, but I dread having Crispie at the helm. I just hope the legislature has the will to keep him in check. I really don't want to have to start wearing a burka, literally or figuratively.


The priest who celebrated at church this week used the phrase "God of our fathers (stop)", as if our mothers didn't (and still don't) count. I was criticized for pointing this out, for being too sensitive, but it's easy for men to call women overly sensitive about being ignored. I expect non-whites have the same or similar feelings. A student of theology once commented that goddess-worship, or, as I prefer, acknowledging the divine within the feminine, was a step backward. I disagree, plain and simple. To me, if I believe that the Holy Spirit is in all the people, and that all Christians are called to ministry, then it is completely inappropriate to engender God as solely male.

In an interesting juxtaposition, I watched "Sicko" last night on TV. MM has a tendency to kill the horse, and then stand over it and beat on it vigorously, but under the overblown rhetoric, he is generally making a valid point. Why does this country not have public health care? We have Social Security, so why not a national health service? I just don't get it, and I never have. No one has ever come close to convincing me that medicine is better handled in the private sector. If everyone with a job paid as much for a national health service as an average health care premium deduction, it could work. One of the biggest failings of the Social Security Administration is that only the working poor and middle class pay for virtually the whole thing. The salary cap should be abolished with people making hundreds of thousands of dollars (even millions) paying a percentage on their whole salary. Major windfall for the system. Likewise, a national health service should have no salary cap. I'm tired of wildly overpaid executives, politicians, attorneys, celebrities griping about their taxes.

It's getting late, and I'm feeling discouraged. Down with Republicans! Down with Democrats! Government of the people, by the people, FOR the people!