Cheryl and Leona:
An Almost Typical American Couple:
A Short Piece That Understands That Political Power is Used as an Instrument of Subordinate
Control in the Guise of "Morality."

William A. Spriggs,
Febuary, 2003
updated: Jan 1, 2008

On February 5th, 2003, I heard from my friends, Leona and Cheryl that some obscure State House Committee has killed a bill that would allow civil unions on the snobby proclamation that it would dilute the prestige of marriage and undermine the institution of marriage.

Let me tell you folks something. Leona and Cheryl are a couple that have lived together for 23 committed years, and despite the fact that they are of the same sex, they are so institutionally, American suburban middle-class, that they almost bore you to tears. They are two well-adjusted, hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding souls who grind out their existence everyday like the rest of us. They live in a well-taken care of suburban home which has a typical sun room, typical gourmet kitchen, typical dinning area, typical family room, typical modest bedroom layout, and a typical storage basement. From the family room, one can look out at their backyard which has the typical landscaped display of garden and trees (or, what's left of one in this drought). Oh, yes. They own two typical, very large, suburban-like dogs whose only fault is that they attempt to assassinate you with their tongues. These two women are a living institution embodiment of a typical married couple in all aspects except they do not conform to the hair-splitting definition that controlling dominates of our society force upon others as qualifications for entry into their snobby hierarchies.

My wife and I were invited over for brunch recently, as typical suburban couples occasionally do as a social function with other couples, and after feeding us a typical Sunday brunch, they invited us to their typical family room for conversation. We exchanged the typical tid-bits of information about each others lives and touched upon politics, both local and national. But, Cheryl and Leona also shared with us a intimate moment of emotion when Cheryl told us about the horrible story that she was unconscious in the hospital for several days with a clogged intestinal artery, but Leona could not make any decisions about her partner of 20 years. The emotional tale brought forth tears and angst that the civil union would have helped to eliminate. It made me begin to dwell as to what really happened on Feb. 5th in that committee room.

It made me understand that only snobby, non-caring elites would look down on people and deny them the right to make a medical decision on behalf of a committed partner when that partner cannot do so themselves, nor even visit that person in the hospital. What decent, moral institution would deny the right of someone to dispose of their committed partner's remains, or the right to donate their organs? Only snobs would deny the right to a person to not be compelled to testify against a partner in a criminal proceeding, nor deny the right to sue someone for the wrongful death of that partner. Only a dominate group would deny the ability to subordinates to collect Social Security survivor and retirement benefits upon the death of a partner. Only powerful elites would deny workmen's compensation, or Veteran benefits upon the death of a partner to those they considered inferior.

These points that I have just listed are just the tip of the iceberg. There still are issues concerning income taxes, marital life estate trusts, family business partnerships, bankruptcy, health and car insurance, alimony, and tax free bequests. Events surrounding the February 5th killing of the civil union bill was not about preventing the dilution and maintaining of a moral institution, but of sending a message to those subordinates in our society the elitist snobs in our local environment are in power, and that those not in power are not worthy of receiving common decency and respect.

Copyright, Evolution's Voyage, 1995 - 2011