Thursday, May 18, 2006

Marriage

One of my heroes, Dan Savage, has been saying for some time that the religious extremists in this country have launched a war on straight rights (you know, as well as the almost openly declared one on gay rights - pretty much it's a war on anyone and anything different from "them" with an increasingly visible number of battlefields).

Here's a story about a city in Missouri where it is NOT ok for an unmarried couple to live with their two children. I gotta wonder if it is ok for someone to live with his sister, mom, and wife (this needs to be at least two different women) and their 11 children.

The Missouri instance of state based family enforcement is put forth under the guise of housing code. Yes. Really. The city's website says one of the purposes of these codes is to "avoid overcrowding by non-related parties", "preserve the character of the neighborhoods and the City" and "protect the general safety and welfare of the City’s residents."

Apparently, the thinking of many residents goes something like: We must do something ti protect ourselves from unmarried couples living together and their bastard children who will destroy the character of the neighborhood! We want to be sure our cars are broken into by legitimate children only.

Funny thing is, this forced adherence to "legitimate" baby making coupling only is nothing new. Even the coat of morality paint that has been thrown on it is not new. Augustus Caesar did the whole pushing the traditional marriage one man, one woman, approved by the state and making lots of babies thing a long time ago. He also did the whole punishing people who didn't have babies, didn't get married, didn't have a monogamous marriage thing too. Nothing new. Not even a little.

So now from the far flung province of Black Jack Missouri comes this very Augustan instance of state mandated family values. Is the Black Jack city council proud of enforcing good pagan values? Were they told to do this by watching birds over town hall or by reading the entrails of a ritually slain sow? Did someone give them a stone fucking tablet? Because otherwise, they should butt the fuck out.

Black Jack's mayor, Praefectus McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption."

So what makes a family? Love, commitment, devotion, and support are not enough by some folks' standards. Apparently, if you're a really serious cracker, family is one man, one woman, one blessing from a church, one expensive ceremony, one frighteningly prom-like reception, one new brother-in-law getting drunk and hitting on the bridesmaid, one new mother-in-law drunk and hitting, two rings you probably couldn't afford to buy and which you will loose within the first year of your marriage when one of you gets angry and throws their ring at the other one, and a piece of paper stamped by an important person who raised enough money for the local pols to be given a patronage position.

BTW, if you'd like to congratulate McCourt and the City of Black Jack council for upholding the values of the (unholy) Roman Empire, you can e-mail him here. You can read Mr. Savage's most recent "Straight Rights Update" here.

2 comments:

WinterWheat said...

Isn't that ridiculous? If their goal was to minimize the number of crack houses and frat houses, then they should simply crack down on the frat houses (and frat down on the crack houses).

Here's one for you: What do adoptive families do? Mom and Dad aren't related to each other or to the kids, and the kids aren't related to each other. Nobody's related. A marriage certificate doesn't make you related; I felt no change in my blood or genes when I got married.

I too like Savage. Did you read his latest book on marriage?

PFG said...

No, I haven't read anything by him other than his column. I have time for renting bad movies but not for as much pleasure reading as I'd like. I get some in here and there if I get sick. The movies are easier on the eyes and after a day of staring at my computer screen or a pile of papers, I need eye-ease. Someday, when I have a job that allows even a small real vacation, I'll read more fun stuff. :(

I really can understand the overcrowded party house issue. Where I live is rural but with a big drinking school (that's redundant I think, in more than one way too) supplying a large percent of the renting population. I've moved four times since starting grad school, and more than once it was to get away from partying neighbors. The ordinance allows for >3 residents if members of the household share blood, marriage, or adoptive (ed?) ties so it doesn't discriminate on adoption...although I do wonder about foster care? I thought that was different from full adoption. Anyhow, it's the married thing that kills me. At my last apartment complex, I had a family who lived next door which consisted of a man who was separated from his wife, his fiance, his fiance's 8 y/o daughter from a previous marriage, and his son by his fiance. They also sometimes had the fiance's other daughter and the guy's other son from his prior marriage.

They were good parents, as good as any (a little overwhelmed but they did stuff with the kids, said "I love you", and no one got hit) and they were great neighbors. Conversely, on my other side I had a family with mom, dad, grandma, grandpa, and two kids (birthchildren of mom and dad). Dad and the grandparents beat the children, dad and the children hit mom, and mom used to accuse all of the neighbors in turn of vandalizing her car (which had probably been done by her children). It kills me to know that a city ordinance like the one in that Missouri town would discriminate against the good family who were good neighbors.