Category Archives: marriage

Where’s the Love?


hearts-bannerFebruary is not only the month of Valentine’s Day, but it is also my anniversary month. This year my husband and I have been married 12 years.

I can say this, marriage is not for the faint of heart. It’s not always a bed of roses. In our case, we’ve been experiencing more thorns as of late. One thing we do agree on is that we’ve got to make changes for the betterment of our daughter. We argue a lot, and that’s taking a toll on her. We’ve somewhat come to an agreement that we need to speak with a family therapist. This will be beneficial for everyone as my husband does not have the understanding or coping skills to deal with living with someone with mental illness. Even more so, he has some of his own issues that he needs to work through. Mix both of those things, and the environment our daughter is living in is not as healthy as it could be. And that’s the goal – improving the environment for her.

This February I will be meditating a lot on what makes a healthy family. I wouldn’t consider my upbringing to be a model example. I consider myself somewhat of an expert of knowing what is not healthy, but I’m not an expert at not making the same mistakes. That’s the goal – knowing what a healthy family is and striving toward that. It’s in all of our best interests, for love, for family, for life.

Agent of the State


online text acronyms icon

The media has saturated our lives with stories of a government official not issuing marriage licenses because of opposition to same sex relationships.

Now, normally I wouldn’t speak publicly about something which I find so malicious, ignorant, and unethical. As I’ve said on my Facebook page, I do not entertain a troll’s existence. I try to apply the same attitude to these types of situations – I do not want to contribute to providing a virulent person a broader public stage to espouse her/his vitriol. However, this lack of attention doesn’t mean that I’m not aware, that I’m not observing (and reading) all sides of an issue (yes, including even the most hateful of support).

I wanted to post on my blog because George Takei’s most recent op-ed on this issue impacted me on a quite unexpected level.  Surprisingly, I was reminded of my horrible boss at Amazon. As a former HR professional, I know that when a manager speaks in the performance of her/his job, what s/he says represents the company. If a manager says it, it’s as if the company is speaking. When my boss responded to my identifying myself as someone with a disability with “the business comes first,” she was walking a fine legal line. In the eyes of the law, because she was speaking in the performance of her job, she was speaking on behalf of Amazon. I say this was a fine legal line because she just made the statement – if she would have done something in support of this statement (behavior), she would have been breaking the law in the form of disability discrimination. I know all of this clearly because I sought counsel from a disability lawyer when these issues were happening. He interpreted the federal and state laws to me in great detail on this issue.

Now, how does this remind me of the marriage license situation? Agency. When my boss was speaking, she was speaking as an agent of the company. When this clerk speaks, within the role of her job, she is an agent of the government. In that capacity, what she says is what the government says. Privately, she can hold any belief she wants. Regardless, in the performance of her job she is representing the State. While “on duty” in the act of her government role, she not only expressed an opinion opposing the State’s stance (SCOTUS has already interpreted the marriage issue in relation to the Constitution), she also acted on those beliefs by not issuing marriage licenses (behavior = discrimination). THIS is how her actions were a breach of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. Through her speech and actions in the performance of her government job, she (the State) was pronouncing a particular brand of Christianity as not only preferred, but State sanctioned (official approval of a religion).

For my degree, my minor studies were in Political Science. In discussing Constitutional Law, one statement has always stuck with me – “one person’s rights END where another person’s rights begin.” You’re Constitutional rights are not infinite; they do NOT extend to other people. You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn’t mean that you can act to impose those beliefs on others because THAT would be a violation of others’ rights.

It’s a balance – the trade off for enjoying freedom is respecting the same right in all, even when those whose beliefs are polar opposites. R.E.S.P.E.C.T. Find out what it means…to all of us.