I posted this for some obvious reasons.
A) It's set in Manhattan- 66th and Columbus to be exact.
B) I think I know the girl in the pink coat...
C) I supported Prop 8 for moral, fiscal and democratic reasons.
D) I feel like singles ward bishops are marriage "pushers" just like Tina Fey was allegedly a "drug pusher" in Mean Girls.
E) My roommate (The ZARA addict) opts out of FHE and other such ward activities, because her almost-engaged status exempts her from the purpose of singles ward. At ward prayer ("stare") the other week when our apartment was being lame-ly 'introduced' and she, of course, was not present, I told the crowd to not worry about getting to know her as she is off the market. However, I refrained from saying "and we know that's what these things are all about anyway," then promptly left.
She told me I should have said that last bit.
I agreed.
And then we both laughed out loud.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Singles Wards: Corrals of marriage-hungry co-eds
Posted by Alexandra at 4:22 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 footnotes:
oh. my. gosh. that movie was HILARIOUS! Loved it! hahahaha
love it...i think it accurately portrays the average byu student....lol
luckily my apartment hasn't been subjected to the ward stare introduction yet, but i'm sure it's coming soon. i have a feeling i'll have a similar story to share about my roommate when that inevitably does happen! also, you may see this video pop up on my blog sometime soon...
Where do you find these things? BYU precisely. I'm glad to say I made it through that place without marriage and dare I say...dated my fiancee longer than 3 months! haha Seriously though, I don't miss that place and the CONSTANT hunting. I think that's where Stephanie Meyers got her whole vampire theme from...BYU men just devour any female walking that has decent legs and is willing to live in married housing. Was that a generalization? GOOD!
I understand your moral argument for supporting prop 8, as it is clearly a part of your value system and upbringing to align yourself with that opinion. The rest of that statement, though, makes little sense to me.
What are the fiscal reasons for which you supported prop 8? So that gay couples can't receive the same tax benefits from the state of California, and therefore some marginally larger piece of their income goes to Sacramento? I really hope that reason I just came up with is not it, but I can't think of any other way to fiscally discuss the denial of civil marriage.
And what was democratic about that referendum? That the rights of a minority group were put up to a vote before the majority? What is democratic about that?
Hi Kevin, thanks for being a fairly new reader of my blog... I say new because if you'd been reading for a while, you would have seen my October post "Why I'm Voting Yes on Prop 8."
Prop 8 wouldn't have been necessary had 4 CA Supreme Court Justices not repealed the 2000 CA popular vote decision to keep marriage hetero. Just fyi.
Thanks for your comment!
I am, indeed, a new reader. And I did read your previous post "Why I'm Voting Yes On Prop 8." I was just hoping that you would clarify what your "fiscal" and "democratic" reasons were for supporting prop 8, which I didn't find in that post, either.
You say that Prop 8 would not have been necessary had that Supreme Court ruling never occurred. I'm confused by what the implication of that statement is.
Are you opposed because they interpreted the constitution of California (their job) as a document that equally protects all of its citizens? Are you opposed because the majority came to a "liberal" decision? (Six of the seven justices were appointed by Republican governors, by the way.)
Or are you opposed to that decision because it was made by a slim majority? To which I counter with a point and a question: first, that is the rule of the court (you can't decry one 4-3 decision without denouncing all of them); and second, is a four point margin on a statewide ballot any more of a convincing proclamation of what the people want?
Just because a Supreme Court decision is unpopular does not mean it is wrong. The persecution faced by homosexuals today is not the same as the persecution faced by black Americans throughout the Jim Crow era, but I remind you (fyi?) that it took only 9 people (the members of the Supreme Court of the United States) to strike down those practices as unconstitutional. Of course, that decision was deeply unpopular in the South... but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. In fact, that is why Supreme Court justices are appointed and not elected: so that they can be free of public pressure to interpret the constitution of their polity.
Prop 8 was a tyranny of a minority by a majority, overruling a body that was doing it's politically insulated job.
I think that your reasoning for supporting Prop 8 (and I, of course, respect your right to your opinion) boils down to your personal view of what is moral and immoral. I therefore only ask that you don't pretend that there are some grand fiscal or democratic reasons for such support.
Hey man, well we can agree to disagree.
And believe me, I appreciate your comments and your Jim Crow refresher. Believe me, I grew up in CA so I've heard your argument time and time again, and make no mistake I DO UNDERSTAND IT. I'm a big believer in the theory that one cannot understand their own opinion without understanding the other side. Thus, I still have my right to vote the way I want.
The fiscal ramifications of Prop 8 are hard to measure, and democratically, everyone has a right to vote, whether or not they are "morally" swayed, which will admit I most definitely am.
Post a Comment