Aunt Caylin isn’t real. It’s just a name I picked to protect her anonymity.
Aunt Caylin is a wonderful person. She’s always been there for me. When I was down, she was always there to stand up for me, or to console me in her way, or whatever was appropriate. If I needed a hand, she was there in a pinch – even when it meant scratching her own schedule. I’ve looked up to her my whole life.
The other day, aunt Caylin and I went out for some tea. I don’t know how it started, and I’m pretty sure I wasn’t the one to bring it up, but we ended up discussing same-sex marriage. Aunt Caylin knows about me and Jay, and she’s just fine with that. But she let me know that me marrying Jay would defile the sanctity of marriage. Make marriage as a whole worth something less.
This hurt me. I asked her did me being in a happy marriage with the person I love somehow make a stranger’s commitment to their partner in the Yukon something less? My sister’s commitment to her husband? It may just, she said. This hurt me more.
We agreed that a bad marriage was one where the love had vanished, if it was there ever at all. A good marriage, I argued, was one where the love remained. So how could two people, who love each other, defile the essence of marriage? No – marriage was always a man and a woman. What about a black man and white woman? Not too long ago, that too wasn’t permissible. But I made no headway.
Now the conversation wasn’t as polite as above. I used arguments that shot below the belt, and Aunt Caylin might have used a cuss word or two. I know we love each other very much. Nevertheless, when someone tells me that my dedication of love somehow lessens the worth of someone else’s relationship, that hurts.
It hurts because this person who means so much to me doesn’t believe I’m worth affording the opportunity to express a life of love with my partner, no matter how strong the love, the bond, no matter how great of a person, or a father, my partner might be. It hurts because my Aunt Caylin won’t ever be able to recognize this and change her mind, because in her view, it isn’t about that. It’s about the sanctity of marriage.
And there’s no going against that is there.
Comments
10 responses to “Conversations with Aunt Caylin”
Auntie is someone I have a harder time respecting now that she has hurt you in such an unnecessary manner. To me, bigotry is bigotry no matter how pretty a bow it wears in it’s hair.
As I pointed out to you before – Auntie isn’t someone we really ought to have a grasp on what a marriage is. She is after all, a divorcee and in a relationship of sin now (read – living with a partner but not married in the eyes of her Lord).
My two cents about those I would protect you from, if allowed by you.
I’m completely on your side when it comes to same-sex marriage. You always have to chose what is right for you and if those who love you are against your actions, they still need to accept your decisions.
I’m on your side as well. If you want to declare your love through marriage, so be it. Why shouldn’t you be allowed? These civil partnerships etc. are not quite the same thing.
Thank you. Having the support of both my sisters for this means a lot to me. Heck, I didn’t even know you guys read this blog. 🙂
Same-sex marriage has been here in Canada for the last seven years. That fact has in no demonstrable way detracted from opposite-sex marriage. People still love each other as they did before, and get married. If someone insists otherwise, I’d ask them to show me the evidence. Where are these couples in Vancouver that feel like their marriage is meaningless now that two dudes in Toronto got married?
I just am not able to reconcile the idea that someone can love me, as I know they do, and yet be so opposed to accepting my happiness. Because this really isn’t an argument about acknowledging the expanded definition of a word. It’s about accepting a change in your life, an abstract one at that, for the sake of someone’s happiness that’s close to you. Turning that disapproval, which hurts so fucking much, into something worth being happy about. Because everyone should be happy when two people declare their love for each other.
You know what the worse part of this is? I know that if “Caylin” read this, that she wouldn’t get it. None of this would change her mind. It’s not about my happiness, I can hear her say, it’s about something bigger: the sanctity of marriage. No – we are our own arbiters of what words mean. If you can’t accept my (potential) marriage like anyone else’s, it’s because you have a problem with me, not with the word.
Why is it I can never come up with these arguments when engaged in debates?
I too am happy to see you receive the well deserved support of your sisters. They’re both fine people. If all the “tea room” discussion accomplished was to elicit their responses, it was probably worthwhile.
Unfortunately I don’t recall the conversation in the “tea shop” being as you describe it. I’m sorry and a little surprised to hear you were “hurt”.
As I recall, the conversation “was”, in fact, quite polite. It ended in the tea shop at which time we went out together for an enjoyable evening. I don’t think the conversation you refer to was actually initiated by either one of us. It grew out of a story you were telling me about your participation in a demonstration which led in turn to a more general discussion about gay politics. The conversation about gay politics led to a talk about same-sex marriages, or as I would prefer to label them, same-sex unions.
Although I understand your sensitivities, my views are long standing and have nothing to do with your’s and Jay’s relationship. That wasn’t the focus of the conversation.
We’ve discussed the issue of same-sex marriage before. In view of the “bigotry” label put forward by the mental midget who calls him/her self SO, however, perhaps I’d better explain myself again. The traditional definition of the term marriage ie. “condition of man and woman legally united for purpose of living together and usu. procreating legal offspring” (1986 edition of the Oxford Dictionary) is the one I have generally accepted. (not the red herrings you floated about the definition promoting polygamy, in our conversation, nor it’s denial of mixed race marriages *see above). I’m not oblivious to the fact that the definition has now been changed to include same-sex couples, at least in Canada so the conversation here is somewhat moot. On the other hand, neither am I oblivious to the manner in which the change was brought about.
Yes, there are those who “are” upset about the change in definition and the usurping of a valued traditional institution. The fact that I understand why they feel this way and am able to sympathize does not make me a bigot. I don’t lose any sleep at night thinking about same-sex marriage but if I’m entitled to say what I believe, I’d say that everything that needed to be accomplished in terms of protecting minority rights vis a vis the gay community and specifically same-sex unions could have been accomplished without altering the traditional definition of marriage ie. it was unnecessary. Since it offended a relatively large segment of society I’d say “why” do it.
I’d like to know how the name calling SO above thinks that my respect for a traditional definition makes me any less tolerant than someone who believes there is a need to change the definition of a significant institution, not to meet any legal or moral standard, but simply to adhere to the political agenda of a specific minority group. A proponent of change intent on replacing accepted norms can be just as intolerant of divergent views as a person intent on preserving them. My personal view is that it’s necessary to look at “all” sides of an issue and to come up with solutions with a thrust based on fairness.
In terms of your happiness, I doubt that you have ever heard me say anything to dissuade you from seeking it. If that state of “happiness” depends on you exploring, adopting and promoting a particular lifestyle or direction or set of circumstances I encourage you to pursue it. If it means spending your time in relationships with a wide range of persons I encourage you to do so. In fact, whatever you need to do to fulfill your needs (short of breaking the law, denying your creative potential or putting your self in harms way) I’d say go for it. About the only thing I recall saying to you is to proceed with caution and that’s simply a reflection of my nature. Do what you think you need to do and don’t worry so much about what anyone else thinks, including Auntie.
That is as much as I care to say about the subject in this note except for two things. First, you need to rethink things if you really believe that my concern in all of this is the “sanctity” of marriage. Second, is that twirp SO really so caught up in self righteousness that he/she actually thinks comments about me living in “sin” have some resonance? Sorry SO … not likely.
Aunt Caylin
SO stands for Significant Other, Auntie.
Now that the masks are off why don’t you take your name calling to my face and we can have a serious talk as to how you have hurt my partner and frankly I’m sick to death of the bull his own damn family throws at him.
Ah yes… Aunt Caylin is becoming so forgetful …
I forgot to comment on what I would say, Julien, is the most important part of your original note. It had to do with something you acknowledge we agree on ie. that love is the key ingredient in a good relationship (you actually said marriage). I’d stick with the word relationship whether that refers to marriage as in a union sanctified by the church, a common law partnership or for that matter a same-sex union.
PSSO grow up.
Okay … Aunt Caylin is out of line
PPSSO
I apologize for my last comment ie. “grow up”. It was a knee jerk reaction and totally uncalled for.
I suggest we both back off the vitriol. It’s going to accomplish absolutely nothing except to put added pressure on your partner and your relationship. I doubt either of us is interested in that. I’m also familiar enough with family rifts to know that they’re a lot easier to create than to heal. If it’s not too late I’d like to withdraw from the fray.
Ergo, auntie’s throwing in the towel with the word “uncle” written on it and saying, in the spirit of the season, “Peace”.
Auntie, I accept your apology and hope you will allow me to apologize for what was also a gut reaction on my first and following remarks.
With the previous bout of drama still unresolved (not from you, but a whole situation that has been slanted only one way), I’ve really just reached the end of anyone making Julien upset for any reason and would rather slash throats and let heads roll than stand aside and let cooler heads prevail.
Perhaps in the new year we can all just get along without the drama. It serves no one.
How did I miss the above? Good Blogging in 2011 !
Happy New year to all !!