The 5 Tigers represent the big things in life. This blog is about facing them.


So There’s This Guy . . .

I really want to talk about a guy I met, but I’m afraid of boring my readers to death.

Like I said in my last post, we met on Facebook Dating. We’ve known each other about 2 weeks now. We started talking on Tuesday the 30th, and our first in person meet up was that Friday. It went well. We really clicked.

We talk multiple times every day. I’m absolutely over the moon about this whole thing, but it seems so fast. I mean, we are each other’s first call of the morning and last call at night. Often we send texts if we wake up in the middle of the night. The level of communication is astounding.

He talks about long term things. I think about them but seldom speak them. I am a little afraid to, as if I can jinx it. Too much, too fast, but it keeps working. Both of us are looking for the point of contention and so far there isn’t one.

He told me how much he earns. I didn’t ask, he wanted me to know. I don’t fully understand, but something about financial security in there. I don’t think he was bragging, he just wanted me not to worry. We ate out several times and I am conscious about money because I have so little of it. He paid. He also bought me a book. I love presents and I love books, so that made me quite happy.

We dance around the idea of love. I think, we are already so attached. We can just hang out and we can undertake projects. I said, “I want to be like those old people, still holding hands at 85.” He replied, “I’m in!” And we assume we will know each other at that age. We talked about, he likes to cook so he can cook and I will clean up, sort of planning a life together. But it seems too early for an emotional commitment, even though I wonder if we have already made one.

He says I make him happy, and he makes me happy too. I just grin into the phone like a damned jack-o-lantern, gap-toothed and all. I don’t know what to say half the time, I just want to hear his voice and feel connected. He’s got a great voice. It melts me when he speaks, except those times when we get excited about yet another similarity between us, because then I am too energized to appreciate his voice.

I would spend all day with him, just watching TV or working on our separate projects. I’m content to share space. In fact, I would probably run the video chat all day long, as if we were in the same room.

So this is me right now. One foot in the hot water, the other on a banana peel, trying not to fall in.

But I think I’m gonna fall. And I’m not bothered by that.

1 Comment

Oh, look, you pushed my button . . .

A friend of mine posted this article, and I started to post a response to it but it ran, well, really long for facebook so I moved it here.

In response to comments in the article about the lack of records for same-sex marriages among women:

. . . and then there is a 19th-century living arrangement known as a “Boston marriage” which is when two “spinsters” shared a living space.  In theory, this began among factory girls during the Industrial Revolution and it was a temporary arrangement however by the Victorian era in larger industrial cities, it was probably not so temporary a choice for many women.  Since women historically did not accumulate wealth, acquire real property or, for that matter, vote, there wasn’t much interest in tracking their activities.  Marriage in the legal sense is usually about property ownership and inheritance so not as monitored for female couples as for male.  (Not to mention the pervasive hetero male fantasy that 2 women who are involved with each other are simply killing time until a man shows up, so female couples do not have the same cultural impact as male couples.)  I’m not gay, I have many years of what is often termed “women’s studies” which de facto includes lesbian studies as a subset.

Back in the 70’s, an elderly couple wrote to Dear Abby (or maybe it was Anne Landers) talking about their desire to get married, reinforced by their religious beliefs, and their very real concern that a marriage would negatively affect their social security payments.  The advice was, have the religious ceremony at the church without having a civil ceremony or registering their union with the government.  Civil marriage is not the same as religious marriage.  It is possible to have one without the other.

In many states the religious officiant has the right to speak for the government (“by the power vested in me by the state of whatever, I now pronounce you . . .  “) although in other places there are two separate processes.  That’s why people take the document presented by the clergy to the county to have the marriage recorded.  Changing the legal definition of marriage does not affect the religious definition, which is set by each sect.  In this country, Church and State are separate entities.  Legalizing same sex marriage does not require moral approval by religious groups.  There are many activities that are legal which may be morally objectionable to someone (eg. drinking, smoking, abortion, and the death penalty, to name a few that come immediately to mind).

Ethics may be the foundation of law, but it is almost impossible to legislate morality.  As it should be.