I home schooled my oldest daughter, Tara, through second grade, but we placed her in a private Montessori school for third grade in August. I continue to have my 3-year-old daughter, Amber, at home with me (meaning, she does not attend pre-school or daycare, though the Montessori school would accept her). I also work from home.
Several people have asked me about the differences between Montessori and home schooling; why we decided to put Tara into Montessori school; and why we decided to return to home schooling again at the end of this 2007-2008 school year.
First, I think I should talk about why we chose to home school in the first place. The short answer is: because public schools suck. However, if you want the long answer:
* We want our children to be able to experience more than they would in public school. In addition to the basics (reading, writing, math), we explore science, economics, computers, yoga, art, history, languages, psychology, world cultures, mythology, poetry, sports, music, dance, logic, politics, archeology, sociology, and more.
* We want them to learn by doing, living, talking, researching, and interacting, and to be able to pursue whatever knowledge interests them, instead of just sitting there receiving whatever the teacher or textbook decides to tell them.
* They are not animals. They don't need to be trained to follow ringing bells, or beg to go to the bathroom, or be generally treated like inmates.
* We want our children to be able to meet and interact with people of ALL ages and backgrounds, not just the same 30 children of the same age and from the same neighborhood every day.
* While we are not Christians, we do want our children to know about all religions and holidays. In public school, religious expression, discussion and celebration is forbidden, (or, in the case of the bible-belt area where we live, one-sided).
* Our children are very bright. Children with high intelligence have special needs. Public schools in our area are not equipped to deal with these types of children.
Other reasons we chose a non-traditional method of education include: the inefficient waste of time in public schools; our belief in the importance of family bonds and activities; the negative social environment of public schools; and several points of disagreement with "traditional" teaching methods.
So, why did we put Tara in a Montessori school? The short answer here is that Tara is a very difficult and demanding child. The "terrible twos" came on when she was only 10 months old, and didn't go away until ... ummmm... yesterday. Mommy needed a break.
We also felt that Amber would benefit greatly, at this point in her development, from having mommy all to herself for a few hours a day.
And Tara was becoming aware of the fact that most other children in our society go to public school, and that school is (according to children's television shows) a magical place of talking dinosaurs, dancing blue dogs, shiny happy people, and playing all day long. She kept asking questions about school, and was curious what it would be like.
There was no way in hell-o operator that we were going to put her in public school, so we began investigating private schools. I'd read quite a bit about the Montessori method five years ago, when I began Tara's pre-school education, and was already using some of the ideas and techniques.
For some humor on this topic, check out "Something Weird Going On In That Montessori School, Neighbor Reports" from The Onion spoof newspaper.
From wikipedia.org: "The (Montessori) method is characterized by an emphasis on self-directed activity on the part of the child ... It stresses the importance of adapting the child's learning environment to his developmental level, and of the role of physical activity in absorbing academic concepts and practical skills."
After four months with the Montessori school, here are some of the differences I've noted between Montessori and public school.
Montessori classrooms do not have assigned seating, and there are only a few desks. Children work on the floor, or at various tables. The classroom is full of accessible plants, animals, learning tools, folders, worksheets, books, and other materials. There is also a kitchen and bathroom in Tara's classroom.
Our Montessori school is much smaller than most public schools. Students range in age from 3 to 15. Administrators get to know all of the students. Teachers and administrators are available via phone and email all the time. Parents can request conferences at any time. Tara's class takes at least two field trips a month. The school is very flexible, and does not classify any absence as "unexcused."
Family obligations are always considered more important than anything else. Parents are actively involved in the school and classroom. Students are not given much homework, only about 20-30 minutes a night, and that includes 15 minutes of reading from any book of their choice. They never receive homework over the weekends or holidays.
Here's a little story that illustrates another difference. We went to dinner last night with a family whose daughter attends public school. The mom asked Tara, "So, do you like your teacher?" And Tara responded, "Which one? We have four classroom teachers, plus a Spanish teacher, art teacher, drama teacher, yoga teacher, gymnastics teacher, PE teacher, and music teacher." And that's all for a classroom of just 26 students.
Another big difference, one which we like very much, is the lack of grading and testing. Students are given workbooks and assignments appropriate to their needs (there are several different ages and achievement levels within Tara's class). But students are not expected to work on the same thing at the same time, or to complete assignments within the same time-frame. And if they do something incorrectly, they are helped until they can do it correctly, not just handed back a paper marked "C" and then moved on to the next assignment.
Children are also not separated strictly by age or ability. Tara is in what's called "lower elementary" and there are children ages 6-9 in her class. Older students help tutor and mentor younger students. Students, even at this age, are expected to be responsible for their education, and are taught organizational, time management and self-discipline skills.
"Although there are many schools which use the name 'Montessori,' the word itself is not recognized as a trademark, nor is it associated with a single specific organization. Thus it is legally possible to use the term 'Montessori' without necessary adherence to a particular training or teaching method." Which is probably why I've heard people accuse "Montessori" public schools of not actually following all - or even most - of the Montessori method.
Now, about that topic which is thrown in the face of every home-schooling family: socialization.
Tara never comes home in tears because anyone is making fun of her. She does not generally talk about things like popularity, clothes, or bullies. She comes home with things like a necklace someone made her to apologize for treating her poorly on the playground. Or stories about someone hurting someone else's feelings and how they all talked it out. I have tried asking questions such as, "Do kids ever make fun of you, or each other?" "Who is the most popular person in class?" etc. These questions don't seem to relate to her experiences.
The Montessori school promotes the attitude that the entire class is a team. They are expected to help each other, work together, to forgive, and to accept each others' differences. Much emphasis is placed on conflict resolution and creating a safe environment, emotionally and physically. They use such techniques as the Peace Rose to work out problems between students. Feelings are not ignored or belittled, no one is expected to put up with bullies or to just ignore a problem until it goes away. Compliments are encouraged, teasing not tolerated.
Children are taught to shake hands, make eye contact, clean up after themselves, tidy up their classrooms and playgrounds, be polite, and other manners which are often lacking in "socialized" public school students.
Diversity is also embraced at the Montessori school. Children are allowed to dress any way they want to, and I've seen several students (and parents) with colored hair. Children wear clothing styles of all kinds. Families are invited to share all of their cultural and religious practices with the school. For instance, recently an email went out to all of the parents asking if they wanted to share their holiday traditions in the classroom - whether that be Christmas, Hanukkah, Diwali, Ramadan, Winter Solstice, Kwanzaa, or whatever.
All of that said, however, I'm not saying things are perfect. She is starting to struggle a little with feeling awkward, sad, shy, and insecure, and the dark part of "socialization" -- the realization that some people can't be trusted, some people aren't nice, some people can be lying and manipulative, and there's some things you just can't fix no matter how hard you try. But these have all been good lessons for her to learn.
So why are we going back to home schooling? One of the main reasons is because Tara requested it. Science is her favorite subject, but one which is not pursued to her satisfaction in the Montessori school. She misses the variety of educational topics and experiences she had while home schooling. Tara recently told us that she also wants to home school again because it gives her more time to think. The noise and constant distractions during lessons are bothering Tara. She said last night, "You know, mom, after being at that school for several weeks now, I've realized that most of the other kids don't care at all about learning anything."
I think Montessori has been, overall, a good experience for Tara, but I don't feel that she's able to work up to her full academic or creative potential. Our Montessori school has done very well with the basic academics** and some of the extracurriculars (such as Spanish, art and music) but it still has its limitations. And I lean toward the unschooling philosophy enough to keenly feel them.
I hope this has explained our experiences with Montessori. I have taken for granted that my audience has an intimate understanding of home schooling. If not, I highly recommend further online research. If you have any questions about our particular experiences with Montessori vs. Home School, I'd be happy to answer them.
** UPDATE MAY 2008: Tara recently finished mandatory standardized testing and did very well.
** UPDATE OCT 2018: Tara is now attending college. She's doing great.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Monday, December 17, 2007
My hero today is Alexis Goggins
From online news reports:
DETROIT - As the gunman was about to open fire, 7-year-old Alexis Goggins lunged from the back seat of the SUV and threw herself across her mom, crying, "Don't hurt my mother!"
Six bullets from the 9 mm handgun slammed into Alexis, one piercing her right eye. Two slugs hit her mother.
The events started when Alexis Goggins, her mother Selietha Parker, 30, and family friend, Aisha Ford, were taken hostage by Parker’s boyfriend, Calvin Tillie, 39. A man she had been dating for only 6-months. Forcing Ford to drive them to a location, Ford stalled for time by stopping at a gas station, and calling 911 on the way in to pay for the gas. Stating that Ford was taking too long, he opened on Parker. It is at that point that Alexis scrambled over the seat and got between her mother and Tillie, begging him to stop. Without hesitation, Tillie unloaded into the little girl.
When police arrived, Tillie surrendered without incident. Alexis was found underneath the steering wheel, bleeding profusely. She was surrounded by bullet casing and broken glass and there were teeth on the seat of the vehicle. Her mother suffered a gunshot wound to the side of the head and bicep.
I would just like to go on record to say that Mr. Tillie should be beaten with a pipe and then fed to dogs. You pull a gun on a mother in front of her child (which is bad enough), and then you go ahead and shoot the child... well, as far as I'm concerned, you have just relinquished all claims to being human and should be tossed in the nearest landfill with the rest of the garbage.
Thanks, I needed to get that off my chest.
A fund has been set up for Alexis. Checks should be made out to the Alexis Goggins Hero Fund and sent to Campbell Elementary School in care of the Alexis Goggins Hero Fund, 2301 E Alexandrine St, Detroit, MI 48207. For information, call (313) 494-2052.
AP article
DETROIT - As the gunman was about to open fire, 7-year-old Alexis Goggins lunged from the back seat of the SUV and threw herself across her mom, crying, "Don't hurt my mother!"
Six bullets from the 9 mm handgun slammed into Alexis, one piercing her right eye. Two slugs hit her mother.
The events started when Alexis Goggins, her mother Selietha Parker, 30, and family friend, Aisha Ford, were taken hostage by Parker’s boyfriend, Calvin Tillie, 39. A man she had been dating for only 6-months. Forcing Ford to drive them to a location, Ford stalled for time by stopping at a gas station, and calling 911 on the way in to pay for the gas. Stating that Ford was taking too long, he opened on Parker. It is at that point that Alexis scrambled over the seat and got between her mother and Tillie, begging him to stop. Without hesitation, Tillie unloaded into the little girl.
When police arrived, Tillie surrendered without incident. Alexis was found underneath the steering wheel, bleeding profusely. She was surrounded by bullet casing and broken glass and there were teeth on the seat of the vehicle. Her mother suffered a gunshot wound to the side of the head and bicep.
I would just like to go on record to say that Mr. Tillie should be beaten with a pipe and then fed to dogs. You pull a gun on a mother in front of her child (which is bad enough), and then you go ahead and shoot the child... well, as far as I'm concerned, you have just relinquished all claims to being human and should be tossed in the nearest landfill with the rest of the garbage.
Thanks, I needed to get that off my chest.
A fund has been set up for Alexis. Checks should be made out to the Alexis Goggins Hero Fund and sent to Campbell Elementary School in care of the Alexis Goggins Hero Fund, 2301 E Alexandrine St, Detroit, MI 48207. For information, call (313) 494-2052.
AP article
Monday, October 02, 2006
WTF?
On September 13, 2006, Kimveer Gill opened fire at Dawson College in Montreal, killing Anastasia De Sousa and injuring 19 other people. He apparently blogged about his violent tendencies on a vampire website, but had no previous criminal record.
Not long after that, Shannon Torrez slit the throat of young mother Stephenie Ochsenbine and kidnapped her newborn baby, all while Stephanie's 1-year-old child was also in the home. Fortunately, Stephanie lived, her 1-year-old was not hurt, and the baby was returned unharmed.
Unfortunately, around the same time in nearby in St. Louis, Tiffany Hall cut an unborn baby from her good friend Jimella Tunstall's womb, and drowned Jimella's children before stuffing their bodies into a washer and dryer. Hall claimed Jimella's baby as her own and tried to have a funeral before her boyfriend turned her in.
Sept. 27, 2006, in Colorado, homeless 53-year-old petty criminal Duane Morrison took six teen girls hostage in a high school English class, molested them, then shot Emily Keyes in the head before shooting himself. Morrison may have researched the victims on myspace.
Sept. 29, 2006, 15-year-old Wisconsin teen Eric Hainstock shot and killed his school principal John Klang. Apparently the teen was angry after being disciplined for bringing tobacco to school. He was also angry about some kids at school who were teasing him and he felt that the teachers and administrators were not helping him.
On October 2, 2006, in Pennsylvania, a milk truck driver Charles Roberts took a schoolroom of Amish children hostage and shot the girls, ages 6-12. He may have called his wife from a cell phone and told her he was "acting out in revenge for something that happened 20 years ago."
These acts were not just committed by loners and outcasts. Hall was a mother herself, and Roberts a husband and father of three. Or, perhaps, in some way, this society has made us all into loners and outcasts, adrift and helpless and disconnected, and more likely to fall apart?
I struggle to understand all of this violence, so much of it against women and girls, within the past month. Why did it happen? Do we blame parents? But, the killers ranged in age from 15 to 53, most of them well beyond the age of parental supervision.
Do we blame easy access to guns? Hall and Torrez did not use guns, they used common, everyday sharp objects, or water.
Do we blame a world in which war is nothing more than just another video game? Gill did like violent video games, but I don't think Morrison was playing them while he lived in his car.
Readers' choice: It's a failure to breastfeed? It's because women don't stay home with their children? Absent fathers? Too much spanking? Not enough spanking? Music? Culture? TV? Lack of religion? Religious nuts? Ritalin? Prozac? Or just plain evil?
Could it be that in times of societal turmoil, more people simply snap? We do live in stressful times. The largest private employer in the country Wal Mart is forcing people into low-wage, part-time jobs without medical benefits or even time off to be with their families. We are struggling with a lot of things and we can't seem to win - the War in Iraq, the War on Drugs, failing schools, too much sex and violence on TV, obesity ...
While the institutions we would normally fall back upon are faltering ... governments and churches are full of perverts and greed ... tens of thousands of people die each year from mistakes made by doctors and medical professionals ... families are driven apart by long working hours, high debt, drugs, too many hours of homework required by public schools leaves little family time ... and of course there's always the perennial divorce rate ...
At the end of the day, I think it boils down to isolation. We don't know who our neighbors are, we hardly know who our spouses are, do we even know who we are? Kimveer Gill was contemptous of his fellow humans. Torrez unsuccessfully struggled with her grief over not being able to have a child of her own. God alone knows what was going through Hall's mind, but she had several boyfriends and was a single mom, which isn't exactly what I would call stable and secure. Morrison was homeless. Hainstock was allegedly teased at school and angry that no one would do anything about it. Roberts acted out because he was dealing with some kind of demons from something that happened 20 years ago.
It's even been said that the victims in Colorado were found and targeted through myspace. Teen girls reaching out into the void for something, and getting evil. It's so sad.
Not that I want to excuse the horror and evil committed by Gill, Torrez and the others. But I am trying to figure out - trying to comprehend - where things go terribly wrong.
I was struck by something I heard on TV this morning: An expert on Amish culture said that the Amish would recover quickly from the tragedy because they have a deep social and spiritual network of extended family and community. Maybe that's the key.
I don't know. There's no point to this post, no point except that I am confronted by terrible evil every time I look at the news, and it upsets me.
John Donne said in 1624, "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
The bell is tolling. It's tolling hard.
Not long after that, Shannon Torrez slit the throat of young mother Stephenie Ochsenbine and kidnapped her newborn baby, all while Stephanie's 1-year-old child was also in the home. Fortunately, Stephanie lived, her 1-year-old was not hurt, and the baby was returned unharmed.
Unfortunately, around the same time in nearby in St. Louis, Tiffany Hall cut an unborn baby from her good friend Jimella Tunstall's womb, and drowned Jimella's children before stuffing their bodies into a washer and dryer. Hall claimed Jimella's baby as her own and tried to have a funeral before her boyfriend turned her in.
Sept. 27, 2006, in Colorado, homeless 53-year-old petty criminal Duane Morrison took six teen girls hostage in a high school English class, molested them, then shot Emily Keyes in the head before shooting himself. Morrison may have researched the victims on myspace.
Sept. 29, 2006, 15-year-old Wisconsin teen Eric Hainstock shot and killed his school principal John Klang. Apparently the teen was angry after being disciplined for bringing tobacco to school. He was also angry about some kids at school who were teasing him and he felt that the teachers and administrators were not helping him.
On October 2, 2006, in Pennsylvania, a milk truck driver Charles Roberts took a schoolroom of Amish children hostage and shot the girls, ages 6-12. He may have called his wife from a cell phone and told her he was "acting out in revenge for something that happened 20 years ago."
These acts were not just committed by loners and outcasts. Hall was a mother herself, and Roberts a husband and father of three. Or, perhaps, in some way, this society has made us all into loners and outcasts, adrift and helpless and disconnected, and more likely to fall apart?
I struggle to understand all of this violence, so much of it against women and girls, within the past month. Why did it happen? Do we blame parents? But, the killers ranged in age from 15 to 53, most of them well beyond the age of parental supervision.
Do we blame easy access to guns? Hall and Torrez did not use guns, they used common, everyday sharp objects, or water.
Do we blame a world in which war is nothing more than just another video game? Gill did like violent video games, but I don't think Morrison was playing them while he lived in his car.
Readers' choice: It's a failure to breastfeed? It's because women don't stay home with their children? Absent fathers? Too much spanking? Not enough spanking? Music? Culture? TV? Lack of religion? Religious nuts? Ritalin? Prozac? Or just plain evil?
Could it be that in times of societal turmoil, more people simply snap? We do live in stressful times. The largest private employer in the country Wal Mart is forcing people into low-wage, part-time jobs without medical benefits or even time off to be with their families. We are struggling with a lot of things and we can't seem to win - the War in Iraq, the War on Drugs, failing schools, too much sex and violence on TV, obesity ...
While the institutions we would normally fall back upon are faltering ... governments and churches are full of perverts and greed ... tens of thousands of people die each year from mistakes made by doctors and medical professionals ... families are driven apart by long working hours, high debt, drugs, too many hours of homework required by public schools leaves little family time ... and of course there's always the perennial divorce rate ...
At the end of the day, I think it boils down to isolation. We don't know who our neighbors are, we hardly know who our spouses are, do we even know who we are? Kimveer Gill was contemptous of his fellow humans. Torrez unsuccessfully struggled with her grief over not being able to have a child of her own. God alone knows what was going through Hall's mind, but she had several boyfriends and was a single mom, which isn't exactly what I would call stable and secure. Morrison was homeless. Hainstock was allegedly teased at school and angry that no one would do anything about it. Roberts acted out because he was dealing with some kind of demons from something that happened 20 years ago.
It's even been said that the victims in Colorado were found and targeted through myspace. Teen girls reaching out into the void for something, and getting evil. It's so sad.
Not that I want to excuse the horror and evil committed by Gill, Torrez and the others. But I am trying to figure out - trying to comprehend - where things go terribly wrong.
I was struck by something I heard on TV this morning: An expert on Amish culture said that the Amish would recover quickly from the tragedy because they have a deep social and spiritual network of extended family and community. Maybe that's the key.
I don't know. There's no point to this post, no point except that I am confronted by terrible evil every time I look at the news, and it upsets me.
John Donne said in 1624, "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
The bell is tolling. It's tolling hard.
Monday, July 17, 2006
"Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme"
I came across this poem today and wanted to keep it.
Let America Be America Again
Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.
(America never was America to me.)
Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed--
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.
(It never was America to me.)
O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.
(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")
Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?
I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek--
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.
I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!
I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean--
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today--O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.
Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home--
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."
The free?
Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay--
Except the dream that's almost dead today.
O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.
Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!
O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!
Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain--
All, all the stretch of these great green states--
And make America again!
- Langston Hughes
Let America Be America Again
Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.
(America never was America to me.)
Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed--
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.
(It never was America to me.)
O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.
(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")
Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?
I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek--
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.
I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!
I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean--
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today--O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.
Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home--
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."
The free?
Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay--
Except the dream that's almost dead today.
O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.
Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!
O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!
Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain--
All, all the stretch of these great green states--
And make America again!
- Langston Hughes
Saturday, June 10, 2006
The Wedding Invitation From Hell
My husband received a wedding invitation from a colleague. No, wait -- first he received a "save the date" refrigerator magnet, many months prior. Which, in my opinion, is silly. If I know you well enough to want to come to your wedding and buy you a gift, shouldn't I also know you well enough to know when the date is coming? And if I don't know you that well, and I don't really want to come, I resent being held hostage. "What do you mean you can't make it? We sent you a save-the-date magnet months ago!"
Then, the wedding invitation itself came along. In a 9x12 envelope. Inside the 9x12 envelope:
1) Another envelope, not addressed but featuring a printed return address for the couple (yes, they already live together). Inside that envelope, an embossed printed invitation, wrapped in fancy paper and tied with a ribbon.
2) A small envelope with the RSVP card inside. Not pre-stamped (I have received RSVP cards already stamped), but pre-printed with their address.
OK, pretty standard so far, I guess. Not that I had any fancy printed invitations for my wedding, or any RSVP cards, but I've seen it done before. Alrighty.
3) A card with their Bed, Bath & Beyond registry number.
Again, I know there are many couples who register at their favorite stores. Sure. Makes it easier for friends and family to shop for a wedding gift. Plus, for an older, professional couple who already lives together, there are probably a lot of things they already have, right?
But then we get:
4) The 8.5x11 12-page "Survival Guide." Yes, Survival Guide. That's what it says on the front cover. Along with a picture of the mansion where the wedding will be held, 30 miles from the couple's house.
This survival guide includes:
- A table of contents. Table of contents? For a wedding invitation?
- A list of contact information. Why would they be inviting anyone who didn't already know their phone numbers or email?
- The complete list of suggested gifts and registries. Topping the list, of course, is CASH. I quote the Survivial Guide: "This is our preferred gift-giving method." Well, no shit. Every human being's "preferred" gift is cash, so do we really need to say it? I think that's in really poor taste. I mean, you don't say, "Hey, grandma, thanks for the card you sent me on my last birthday, but my PREFERRED GIFT-GIVING METHOD is cash." "Mom, I appreciate that you spent 3 hours trying to find just the right gift for last Christmas, but, y'know, my PREFERRED GIFT-GIVING METHOD is money..." Or, well, maybe these people do. And that's just sad.
But, then, wait, if you can't bring yourself to just cough up the money, they do accept GIFT CARDS. And they are kind enough to include, in the Survival Guide, a list of 10 stores from which they will accept gift cards.
So, I have to ask, are they inviting that many people who are A) complete morons, and/or B) know the couple so very little as to have no idea which stores they might enjoy? And, does this mean that if I get them a gift card from Sears instead of Kohls, then these ingrateful shits won't be our friends any more?
- Travel and Lodging. OK, this is nice of them. They provide airport info and local hotels. But, did this really need to be in the Survival Guide and sent to all 100-200 (300?) guests? Couldn't this just be told, via phone or email, to the people flying in? Are most of the guests flying in from somewhere else? Must be nice to have such a huge group of people willing to take time off work and drop so much money on flying in for your shindig. I couldn't even find 15 people to come to my wedding, and that's including the wedding party, my coworkers, the minister and her husband.
- A list of everyone in the wedding party, parents, grand-parents and "special guests." Meaning, I guess, that all other guests are not special. Just cough over the cash and gift cards, please.
- Rehearsal itinerary. Now, call me crazy, but I thought that the rehearsal dinner was a nice little tradition started as a way for the close friends/family in the wedding party to unwind and bond between practicing the wedding at the church and then actually doing the wedding. We never had a rehearsal for our wedding, and thus never a rehearsal dinner, but I can see why some folks would. Some weddings are complicated, and it helps to run through it with the minister, at the location, once. Apparently this couple's wedding is VERY complicated, as they say that the rehearsal will take up to 3 hours. Whew.
Then they say that EVERYONE is welcome to the rehearsal dinner, the night before the wedding. Um, then what's the point of the dinner after the wedding? Oh, well, I guess the dinner after the wedding is the nice one. The dinner before the wedding will be Subway and Smithfield's in a local hotel meeting room.
Y'know, subs and BBQ in a hotel meeting room is considered a "reception" by a lot of folks (the kind who maybe don't get hitched in mansions nor expect lots of cashy money). But, get this, if you are coming to this couple's rehearsal dinner, be prepared to PAY! Yup, "All others are welcome to come with a donation of $3/person."
- An explanation of their BIG DAY, including dress code and wedding itinerary.
"July 15th is a very special day for us." Well, no shit.
"We have spent countless days researching and planning for this special occasion." You and everyone else who ever has a wedding. Even my own small wedding took several days-worth of planning and researching. I've had a few friends get married in Las Vegas, and even that takes some time and planning. You're not special.
"As such, below you will find some helpful information for how things will occur." So, because you are apparently the only people to ever consider a wedding a "special day," and because you spent a lot of time planning for it, you get to be arrogant assholes. Got it.
"Dress code: No jeans or t-shirts please!" Um, are you actually inviting people who don't already know this? Or is this simply more condescension?
"Itinerary: 2:30 - Arrive promptly." No, actually, I was hoping to wander in sometime around the "I do," in my jeans and t-shirt.
Itinerary continued:
"3:00 - Ceremony Begins in the Garden
3:30 - Cocktail Hour by the pool
4:30 - Reception in the ballroom
4:45 - First Dance
5:00 - Dinner is served
6:00 - Cake Cutting/Toasts
6:30 - Dancing/Mingling
9:00 - Garter/Bouquet Toss
10:00 - Bride & Groom Exit, Guests Depart."
I am SO glad they included this in the Survival Guide. Now I know exactly when I can start mingling, and when I'm allowed to leave. And when to tell the strippers and clown to arrive.
And, may I just say: Seven hours. That's SEVEN fucking hours. Oh, my.
- Finally, they have 5 pages of maps and directions and info about the local hotel. Again, did this really need to be in the Survival Guide sent to all guests?
All told, I estimated that if you include gas and travel time, the appropriate clothing my husband would have to buy (he doesn't own any suits) and the wedding gift, he'd be spending as much as we spent during our wedding. For an aquaintance who thinks we're too stupid to show up on time, not wearing a t-shirt, and too inept to shop for a nice gift.
This invitation was received just a few days after I got an invitation to my friend Melanie's wedding. Her invitation was a handmade 4x6 postcard, printed on a computer, embellished with some scrapbooking stickers. It was very pretty. Melanie also has a website where people can go to RSVP. Her website does have some info about locations, accommodations, how the couple met, who is in the wedding party. But no 12-page guide. No cards to mail back. No gift registries. No dress code. No demands.
Melanie and her man do ask for monetary gifts, but this is how they say it: "With our combined households, and a brand new house we really don’t need anything most newlyweds would need. What we have decided to do is ask for monetary gifts to our trailer fund. With Kevin’s race schedule we really need housing for our family of five out in the dirt. We are currently setting our sites on a used model which is $28,000.00. So any and all wedding gifts will be put toward a deposit on this travel trailer. We thank you in advance for any contribution you can make."
I bet the snotty Survival Guide couple spent more than $28K on their wedding.
Then, the wedding invitation itself came along. In a 9x12 envelope. Inside the 9x12 envelope:
1) Another envelope, not addressed but featuring a printed return address for the couple (yes, they already live together). Inside that envelope, an embossed printed invitation, wrapped in fancy paper and tied with a ribbon.
2) A small envelope with the RSVP card inside. Not pre-stamped (I have received RSVP cards already stamped), but pre-printed with their address.
OK, pretty standard so far, I guess. Not that I had any fancy printed invitations for my wedding, or any RSVP cards, but I've seen it done before. Alrighty.
3) A card with their Bed, Bath & Beyond registry number.
Again, I know there are many couples who register at their favorite stores. Sure. Makes it easier for friends and family to shop for a wedding gift. Plus, for an older, professional couple who already lives together, there are probably a lot of things they already have, right?
But then we get:
4) The 8.5x11 12-page "Survival Guide." Yes, Survival Guide. That's what it says on the front cover. Along with a picture of the mansion where the wedding will be held, 30 miles from the couple's house.
This survival guide includes:
- A table of contents. Table of contents? For a wedding invitation?
- A list of contact information. Why would they be inviting anyone who didn't already know their phone numbers or email?
- The complete list of suggested gifts and registries. Topping the list, of course, is CASH. I quote the Survivial Guide: "This is our preferred gift-giving method." Well, no shit. Every human being's "preferred" gift is cash, so do we really need to say it? I think that's in really poor taste. I mean, you don't say, "Hey, grandma, thanks for the card you sent me on my last birthday, but my PREFERRED GIFT-GIVING METHOD is cash." "Mom, I appreciate that you spent 3 hours trying to find just the right gift for last Christmas, but, y'know, my PREFERRED GIFT-GIVING METHOD is money..." Or, well, maybe these people do. And that's just sad.
But, then, wait, if you can't bring yourself to just cough up the money, they do accept GIFT CARDS. And they are kind enough to include, in the Survival Guide, a list of 10 stores from which they will accept gift cards.
So, I have to ask, are they inviting that many people who are A) complete morons, and/or B) know the couple so very little as to have no idea which stores they might enjoy? And, does this mean that if I get them a gift card from Sears instead of Kohls, then these ingrateful shits won't be our friends any more?
- Travel and Lodging. OK, this is nice of them. They provide airport info and local hotels. But, did this really need to be in the Survival Guide and sent to all 100-200 (300?) guests? Couldn't this just be told, via phone or email, to the people flying in? Are most of the guests flying in from somewhere else? Must be nice to have such a huge group of people willing to take time off work and drop so much money on flying in for your shindig. I couldn't even find 15 people to come to my wedding, and that's including the wedding party, my coworkers, the minister and her husband.
- A list of everyone in the wedding party, parents, grand-parents and "special guests." Meaning, I guess, that all other guests are not special. Just cough over the cash and gift cards, please.
- Rehearsal itinerary. Now, call me crazy, but I thought that the rehearsal dinner was a nice little tradition started as a way for the close friends/family in the wedding party to unwind and bond between practicing the wedding at the church and then actually doing the wedding. We never had a rehearsal for our wedding, and thus never a rehearsal dinner, but I can see why some folks would. Some weddings are complicated, and it helps to run through it with the minister, at the location, once. Apparently this couple's wedding is VERY complicated, as they say that the rehearsal will take up to 3 hours. Whew.
Then they say that EVERYONE is welcome to the rehearsal dinner, the night before the wedding. Um, then what's the point of the dinner after the wedding? Oh, well, I guess the dinner after the wedding is the nice one. The dinner before the wedding will be Subway and Smithfield's in a local hotel meeting room.
Y'know, subs and BBQ in a hotel meeting room is considered a "reception" by a lot of folks (the kind who maybe don't get hitched in mansions nor expect lots of cashy money). But, get this, if you are coming to this couple's rehearsal dinner, be prepared to PAY! Yup, "All others are welcome to come with a donation of $3/person."
- An explanation of their BIG DAY, including dress code and wedding itinerary.
"July 15th is a very special day for us." Well, no shit.
"We have spent countless days researching and planning for this special occasion." You and everyone else who ever has a wedding. Even my own small wedding took several days-worth of planning and researching. I've had a few friends get married in Las Vegas, and even that takes some time and planning. You're not special.
"As such, below you will find some helpful information for how things will occur." So, because you are apparently the only people to ever consider a wedding a "special day," and because you spent a lot of time planning for it, you get to be arrogant assholes. Got it.
"Dress code: No jeans or t-shirts please!" Um, are you actually inviting people who don't already know this? Or is this simply more condescension?
"Itinerary: 2:30 - Arrive promptly." No, actually, I was hoping to wander in sometime around the "I do," in my jeans and t-shirt.
Itinerary continued:
"3:00 - Ceremony Begins in the Garden
3:30 - Cocktail Hour by the pool
4:30 - Reception in the ballroom
4:45 - First Dance
5:00 - Dinner is served
6:00 - Cake Cutting/Toasts
6:30 - Dancing/Mingling
9:00 - Garter/Bouquet Toss
10:00 - Bride & Groom Exit, Guests Depart."
I am SO glad they included this in the Survival Guide. Now I know exactly when I can start mingling, and when I'm allowed to leave. And when to tell the strippers and clown to arrive.
And, may I just say: Seven hours. That's SEVEN fucking hours. Oh, my.
- Finally, they have 5 pages of maps and directions and info about the local hotel. Again, did this really need to be in the Survival Guide sent to all guests?
All told, I estimated that if you include gas and travel time, the appropriate clothing my husband would have to buy (he doesn't own any suits) and the wedding gift, he'd be spending as much as we spent during our wedding. For an aquaintance who thinks we're too stupid to show up on time, not wearing a t-shirt, and too inept to shop for a nice gift.
This invitation was received just a few days after I got an invitation to my friend Melanie's wedding. Her invitation was a handmade 4x6 postcard, printed on a computer, embellished with some scrapbooking stickers. It was very pretty. Melanie also has a website where people can go to RSVP. Her website does have some info about locations, accommodations, how the couple met, who is in the wedding party. But no 12-page guide. No cards to mail back. No gift registries. No dress code. No demands.
Melanie and her man do ask for monetary gifts, but this is how they say it: "With our combined households, and a brand new house we really don’t need anything most newlyweds would need. What we have decided to do is ask for monetary gifts to our trailer fund. With Kevin’s race schedule we really need housing for our family of five out in the dirt. We are currently setting our sites on a used model which is $28,000.00. So any and all wedding gifts will be put toward a deposit on this travel trailer. We thank you in advance for any contribution you can make."
I bet the snotty Survival Guide couple spent more than $28K on their wedding.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
More evidence supporting my Stonehenge/King Arthur theory!
In college, for an archaeology class, I wrote a paper suggesting that the King Arthur legend has its origins long before the Dark Ages. All the way back, in fact, to the dawning of the bronze age and the building of Stonehenge. I drew connections between certain key elements of the King Arthur myth, and what we know about the megalithic monument on England's Salisbury Plain.
In brief, the earliest surviving written reference to Arthur is in a Welsh poem from around 594 AD. Another early reference to Arthur is in the Historia Britonum, attributed to the Welsh monk Nennius, who is said to have written this compilation of early Welsh history around the year 830 AD. In this work, Arthur is referred to as a "leader of battles" rather than as a king. Nennius is also the first to mention Merlin.
It's in the 11th and 12th centuries that several more references to Arthur pop up in Welsh tales and stories about the lives of saints. Also, Geoffrey of Monmouth's fictional Historia Regum Britanniae, c. 1138, was a medieval "bestseller" that attracted other writers to expand upon the tales of Arthur. Over the centuries, chivalry, knights, Celtic mythos, magic, fairies, and other elements were added.
I suggested that the story -- the seeds of the story -- were in fact much older. Just as the tale of Arthur has remained popular for the past 15 centuries, perhaps it goes back even further? Perhaps 2000 years or more before being referenced by that Welsh poet Aneirin? After all, people didn't write much down back then, and oral tradition was to them what the internet is to us.
The area where Stonehenge is located has been used as a sacred or special area since about 4000 BCE. Neolithic farmers built long barrow communal burial chambers in the vicinity. They also built circular enclosures and causeways, which are forerunners of the Stonehenge monument.
Between 3000 and 2000 BCE, however, long barrows went out of use (the use of long barrows without grave goods gave way to individual burials accompanied by wealth - or what would have been wealth to the people of the time). The first phase of construction on Stonehenge itself began c. 2800 BCE, and Silbury Hill was also built (the largest man-made mound in Europe).
The appearance of grave goods/individual burials and this mobilization of resources/manpower is interpreted as the shift from an egalitarian farming community to a chieftain society.
My idea: The "once and future king" of British legend may be an ancient king, the first "king" in England, the chieftain who set himself apart as a leader among men. A leader who was the first to wield metal weapons, the first Excaliburs, at the dawn of the Bronze Age. This magic of pulling a sword from a stone may be an echo of the wonder felt by those first farmer folks who witnessed this forging of a metal tool on a stone anvil (aha! the "sword in the stone"?). Such a power may have enabled a man to become chief, to mobilize the moving of even larger stones into what is sometimes called "The Giants' Round" - the earliest Round Table, perhaps?
The prosperity of this golden age went on for centuries, and perhaps left its mythic mark in the oral traditions of those first residents of the Neolithic Camelot, then passed on to the Celtic bards and druids who came later.
Having proposed all this about 10 years ago, I was so excited to read in Smithsonian magazine that in 2002 archaeologists found the graves of two men just a few miles from Stonehenge. This find turned out to be the richest Bronze Age burial ever discovered in Great Britain.
One of the men, dubbed the "Amesbury Archer" or "King of Stonehenge," was buried with a wrist guard, arrows, and almost 100 other artifacts, including tiny copper knives and a cushion stone - a hand-sized piece of rock used as an anvil.
And, interestingly, this King of Stonehenge did not come from the locals. Based on a tooth enamel analysis (I know, isn't it amazing what we can do, nowadays?) they think the Archer (the Arthur?) grew up in Central Europe.
"The archers would have been at the vanguard of the flashy new trade," says the Smithsonian article. "Carbon dating, and the absence of metal objects from earier graves, suggest the archer's arrival roughly coincides with the arrival of metalworking to the British Isles."
"The knowledge in his hands and in his head," archaeologist Andrew Fitzpatrick said, "was the key to his status. He brought a unique or exceptionally rare skill. You can think of the archer as a kind of magician."
OK, so maybe they didn't find Arthur, just Merlin.
The archer's arrival not only coincided with the bronze age arriving in Britain, but also of the erection of 20- and 30-ton stones at Stonehenge. "And it's even possible the archer may have provided the catalyst to get the project started... Perhaps he exploited his position as a charismatic outsider... to forge alliances among the region's cheiftains." (Smithsonian)
It's as if they found the very person I suggested in my paper. Isn't that wild?
Another interesting bit of info: My Welsh dictionary tells me that "arth" means "bear," and most name lists will say that Arthur means "bear" or derives from the Latin name Artorius. But, I just discovered that in Old Irish art means stone. Hmmm...
Mystery Man of Stonehenge article in Smithsonian Magazine
Wikipedia King Arthur article
In brief, the earliest surviving written reference to Arthur is in a Welsh poem from around 594 AD. Another early reference to Arthur is in the Historia Britonum, attributed to the Welsh monk Nennius, who is said to have written this compilation of early Welsh history around the year 830 AD. In this work, Arthur is referred to as a "leader of battles" rather than as a king. Nennius is also the first to mention Merlin.
It's in the 11th and 12th centuries that several more references to Arthur pop up in Welsh tales and stories about the lives of saints. Also, Geoffrey of Monmouth's fictional Historia Regum Britanniae, c. 1138, was a medieval "bestseller" that attracted other writers to expand upon the tales of Arthur. Over the centuries, chivalry, knights, Celtic mythos, magic, fairies, and other elements were added.
I suggested that the story -- the seeds of the story -- were in fact much older. Just as the tale of Arthur has remained popular for the past 15 centuries, perhaps it goes back even further? Perhaps 2000 years or more before being referenced by that Welsh poet Aneirin? After all, people didn't write much down back then, and oral tradition was to them what the internet is to us.
The area where Stonehenge is located has been used as a sacred or special area since about 4000 BCE. Neolithic farmers built long barrow communal burial chambers in the vicinity. They also built circular enclosures and causeways, which are forerunners of the Stonehenge monument.
Between 3000 and 2000 BCE, however, long barrows went out of use (the use of long barrows without grave goods gave way to individual burials accompanied by wealth - or what would have been wealth to the people of the time). The first phase of construction on Stonehenge itself began c. 2800 BCE, and Silbury Hill was also built (the largest man-made mound in Europe).
The appearance of grave goods/individual burials and this mobilization of resources/manpower is interpreted as the shift from an egalitarian farming community to a chieftain society.
My idea: The "once and future king" of British legend may be an ancient king, the first "king" in England, the chieftain who set himself apart as a leader among men. A leader who was the first to wield metal weapons, the first Excaliburs, at the dawn of the Bronze Age. This magic of pulling a sword from a stone may be an echo of the wonder felt by those first farmer folks who witnessed this forging of a metal tool on a stone anvil (aha! the "sword in the stone"?). Such a power may have enabled a man to become chief, to mobilize the moving of even larger stones into what is sometimes called "The Giants' Round" - the earliest Round Table, perhaps?
The prosperity of this golden age went on for centuries, and perhaps left its mythic mark in the oral traditions of those first residents of the Neolithic Camelot, then passed on to the Celtic bards and druids who came later.
Having proposed all this about 10 years ago, I was so excited to read in Smithsonian magazine that in 2002 archaeologists found the graves of two men just a few miles from Stonehenge. This find turned out to be the richest Bronze Age burial ever discovered in Great Britain.
One of the men, dubbed the "Amesbury Archer" or "King of Stonehenge," was buried with a wrist guard, arrows, and almost 100 other artifacts, including tiny copper knives and a cushion stone - a hand-sized piece of rock used as an anvil.
And, interestingly, this King of Stonehenge did not come from the locals. Based on a tooth enamel analysis (I know, isn't it amazing what we can do, nowadays?) they think the Archer (the Arthur?) grew up in Central Europe.
"The archers would have been at the vanguard of the flashy new trade," says the Smithsonian article. "Carbon dating, and the absence of metal objects from earier graves, suggest the archer's arrival roughly coincides with the arrival of metalworking to the British Isles."
"The knowledge in his hands and in his head," archaeologist Andrew Fitzpatrick said, "was the key to his status. He brought a unique or exceptionally rare skill. You can think of the archer as a kind of magician."
OK, so maybe they didn't find Arthur, just Merlin.
The archer's arrival not only coincided with the bronze age arriving in Britain, but also of the erection of 20- and 30-ton stones at Stonehenge. "And it's even possible the archer may have provided the catalyst to get the project started... Perhaps he exploited his position as a charismatic outsider... to forge alliances among the region's cheiftains." (Smithsonian)
It's as if they found the very person I suggested in my paper. Isn't that wild?
Another interesting bit of info: My Welsh dictionary tells me that "arth" means "bear," and most name lists will say that Arthur means "bear" or derives from the Latin name Artorius. But, I just discovered that in Old Irish art means stone. Hmmm...
Mystery Man of Stonehenge article in Smithsonian Magazine
Wikipedia King Arthur article
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Two moms? That's nothing new...
"SAN FRANCISCO - In the latest ruling to recognize rights of same-sex couples, the California Supreme Court has said gay and lesbian couples who raise children are lawful parents and must provide for their children if they break up."
Good! A responsible parent is a responsible parent, regardless of sex.
" 'Today's ruling defies logic and common sense by saying that children can have two moms,' said attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel. 'That policy establishes that moms and dads as a unit are irrelevant when it comes to raising children.' "
The policy establishes that having both a mom and a dad is irrelevent? I thought society had established that on its own, several decades ago. Single moms and single dads, grandparents, extended family and unrelated custodians have been raising children for quite awhile now - where's this guy been?
And the ruling says that children can have two moms? That's nothing new. There have been children with two moms for decades, if you count stepmoms and grandmoms, aunties, adoptive moms and close family friends. Centuries, if you count all of the cultures which have practiced (and still practice) polygamy.
"Several child-advocacy organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs taking the same side."
Exactly. This has much less to do with the "rights" of same-sex parents than it has to do with the rights of the children to be cared and provided for.
Good! A responsible parent is a responsible parent, regardless of sex.
" 'Today's ruling defies logic and common sense by saying that children can have two moms,' said attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel. 'That policy establishes that moms and dads as a unit are irrelevant when it comes to raising children.' "
The policy establishes that having both a mom and a dad is irrelevent? I thought society had established that on its own, several decades ago. Single moms and single dads, grandparents, extended family and unrelated custodians have been raising children for quite awhile now - where's this guy been?
And the ruling says that children can have two moms? That's nothing new. There have been children with two moms for decades, if you count stepmoms and grandmoms, aunties, adoptive moms and close family friends. Centuries, if you count all of the cultures which have practiced (and still practice) polygamy.
"Several child-advocacy organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs taking the same side."
Exactly. This has much less to do with the "rights" of same-sex parents than it has to do with the rights of the children to be cared and provided for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)