Friday, April 29, 2005

Rights and Responsibilities of Pet Spouses


    Spring is unquestionably my favorite season in Minnesota.  The weather is near-perfect; the mosquitoes have yet to hatch; and all the world is outdoors in the warming sun.  It is the time to dig out our softball equipment, to oil up our inline-skates, and to think about adopting the perfect pet.

    Cute, cuddly, faithful, and attentive to our every mood, pets offer us unconditional love, constant companionship, and a sense of security.
   
    On bright summer days, they energize us to go forth and greet the world, while on grayer days, they make good listeners, never failing to take our side, no matter how outrageous or inane our behavior.

    But, realizing that I travel far too frequently to tend to a pet adequately, I have arrived at a mature decision:  I need to be around long enough to form an adult relationship with another rperson before I endeavor to adopt a pet.

    Yes, pet ownership is healthy and desirable, but as the local Humane Society can point out, taking responsibility for a pet is a big step, a larger task than most of us realize.  Before you adopt, you need to be ready for the downside.
   
    I have had many friends who have found they lack the time, finances, or maturity to provide for their pet’s needs properly.

    Human relationships have their responsibilities as well.  They have their downs as well as their ups.

    In our current rush to pursue queer-marriage rights, we need to be aware of the same considerations.

    We agree that the queer community is ready for legalized marriage commitments, but “adopting” a spouse can make pet issues pale in comparison.  We need to identify clearly our moral and legal obligations before we pursue this human responsibility.

    Are we ready for the consequences:  divorce, alimony payments to ex-lovers, ambiguous common-law arrangements, and expensive settlement agreements?

    Do our “open-though-committed” relationships then become bigamous, polygamous, or simply adulterous?

    Should extramarital lovers be granted certain rights and recognitions?

    Should a “friend with benefits” be granted visiting rights to the cat?

    Certain gay-marriage opponents already have set their sights on the concept of no-fault divorce. L You could be stuck forever with that person you picked up at the bar – or that person with you.

    Marriage should be seen as fun and enjoyable – an arrangement to be desired.

    Just remember that when you enter into a legal commitment with someone, you cannot just shut the door on responsibility and walk away.


Original published 29 April – 12 May, 2005
Lavender Magazine, v 10 No 259
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Friday, April 15, 2005

OutFront Minnesota's Lobbying Day


    Attending OutFront Minnesota’s GLBT Lobby Day at the State Capitol was a great first assignment as Managing Editor at Lavender.

    Beautiful weather, visionary speakers, old friends, and a good cause combined for a successful rally, as thousands of queers and their friends prepared to engage their legislators in dialogue regarding the effect potential legislative decisions might have on our lives and basic civil rights.

    I was glad to be part of this community again.

    Dialogue and community are two inter-related concepts, each meaningless without the other.

    I reflected on this relationship last fall, when I had to decide whether to change my residency to Montana, where I had returned for family business.

    At the time, petitions were being circulated in Montana to bring up for referendum a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

    Certain home-schooling advocates were fighting for the right to pull their children out of public schools – in part to prevent them from being exposed to the “institutionalized normalization of the GLBT lifestyle.”

    As a taxpayer, they wanted me to be a part of their community, but as a gay person, they would tolerate me only if I remained silent and pulled out of the active communal experience.

    I realized that my Minnesota driver’s license not only represented better shopping and access to a full-scale symphony orchestra, but also entitled me to participate fully in active dialogue with my community, without fear, and without having to negotiate away my basic rights.

    While queers in Minnesota are not yet able to marry, they do have the rights to adopt children, enter into political discourse without fear of reprisal, be treated with dignity and acceptance in public schools, not be discriminated against in the workplace, and, in certain jurisdictions, register civil family arrangements publicly.

    Regrettably, Minnesota is the exception rather than the rule.  The strength of our rights hinges on our participation in each election, and on our ability to maintain an active dialogue with the broader community.

    So, I am back in Minnesota, and while being Managing Editor might be taking the concept of dialogue a bit far, I am relieved to have an opportunity to work within a community that shares my concerns; values me for who I am; and maintains the active tradition of dialogue necessary for communicating, addressing, and protecting our common interests as a proud GLBT community.

Originally published 15-28 April, 2005, v 10 no 258
Lavender Magazine
Minneapolis, Minnesota