This past weekend, a scourge came and went. I hesitate to bring it up, in case you were unaware of its existence, but nonetheless, I feel I should warn you about…
Sweetest Day.
I will freely admit I am not a huge fan of most holidays, and, yes, I’m one of those people who has a particular disdain for Valentine’s Day.
However, I don’t hate Sweetest Day because I dislike Valentine’s Day, nor do I hate it for the same reasons.
Despite how I feel about Valentine’s Day, I understand its purpose. It’s a day for those who have someone special in their lives to be particularly devoted to that person (and annoy the living hell out of us single people, but I digress).
In other words, Valentine’s Day is celebration of a relationship, and, except in the obvious ways, is not much different than Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Bosses’ Day, Teachers’ Day, and so on.
The reason I hate Sweetest Day so much is that it’s the same damn holiday. Think about it: Who is your Sweetest but your Valentine?
If you’re in love with someone, then you’re already letting them know how special he or she is to you (and most likely buying gifts) on his/her birthday, your anniversary and during the holidays in addition to Valentine’s Day, at the very least.
Hence, there is absolutely no need for Sweetest Day except for retailers to bilk more poor lovers into buying even more crap to “show their love.”
You already know I’m not one of those who gripes about consumerism, “affluenza,” or anything along those lines. But I think that Sweetest Day is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. (Furthermore, I’d be really concerned about dating a person who insists Sweetest Day is on par with Valentine’s Day; you run an excellent chance of being broke in the near future.)
So do yourself a favor: If you’re in a relationship and you can get away with it, pretend Sweetest Day doesn’t exist. Don’t fall for the ads and ignore the signs outside the flower shops, candy stores and jewelers.
With any luck, we can stop this sham of a holiday before it starts to catch on.
Proposition 8, Take Two
October 31st, 2009 | No Comments »In a referendum that many see as a “sequel” to California’s Proposition 8, the people of the state of Maine will vote Tuesday on the “People’s Veto,” which is as follows:
“Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?”
I have already stated my thoughts on same-sex marriage as well as marriage in the hands of “the law.” However, my point of contention here is with the referendum itself, and more specifically, the titles.
Forgetting that “The People’s Veto” sounds more like something from a totalitarian regime (or a wrestling finisher) than a State in the Union, the fact of the matter is that it is, by no stretch, the people’s veto. If the referendum is passed, it is the majority’s veto and a case of forcing the will of many on the fewer, the implications of which are exactly why this country was founded as a republic, not a democracy.
The, ahem, “People’s Veto” is ironically and disingenuously also entitled “An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.” Let’s handle this one claim at a time.
To believe that repealing gay marriage ends discrimination in any manner uses the type of twisted logic that only right-wing religious fanatics can claim to be rational. Banning gay marriage does not “protect” or “save” marriage, because it doesn’t stop “traditional” marriages from taking place; it only allows additional types of bonds to be considered marriages.
As the referendum stands, it also does not affirm religious freedom, because the only reason to want to forbid gay people to get married outside bigotry is religious belief. Using religion to craft law imposes said religion on others, which is the exact opposite of religious freedom. (Then again, perhaps the goal of the people who crafted and support the referendum is to admit bigotry, who knows?)
If I am correct in my reading of the referendum, the law in place already allows those with objections — whatever they might be — to same-sex marriage to not perform the unions. This is why when some of the referendum’s supporters claim they are not “hateful bigots”, many others have a hard time believing it.