ChildSuites: Quality Child Boarding

On my drive home from work today, I was pondering the convenience of animal boarding.  Kate and I are house/dog sitting for our best friends this week.  They always take care of our dog when we're out of town, and we always reciprocate the favor.  Of course, if Kate and I didn't have friends with whom we could share pet parenting responsibilities, we could always board our dog with our vet, or we could get all fancy and send her to a pet "resort" such as PetSuites.

The thought of boarding our dog got me to thinking:  Why can't you board your children?

Let's face it.  Children are an inconvenience.  They're not like cats:  you can't just sit out a couple of extra litter boxes and food and water dispensers to leave them unattended while you take a long weekend at the gambling boat.  Sometimes, you just need to get away without the kids for a while, maybe for a night out drinking to forget that you no longer live your own live because of that pseudo-parasite of yours.

Sure, there are daycare facilities.  But how much fun can an adult actually have sans kids while the sun is still out.  No, you need around the clock care for real fun and to give you adequate time to recover from your hangover or to swing by your local Rite-Aid to pick up the morning after pill to keep your problems from multiplying after a night out.  Lots of folks with kids have friends that they can count on to babysit in such circumstances.  But what if you're one of those parents who are entirely on you own because your bad-ass delinquent child has alienated you from every rational, responsible, sane adult in your life?  There should be a reliable option for you, too!

That's why the folks who run PetSuites need to start a new venture:  ChildSuites.  You just make a reservation, then drop your kid off.  They'll make sure your kid is fed, watered, and walked, then you just go retrieve your kid days later, after that binge is out of your system or after you're overcome with the guilt of having boarded your child (whichever comes first).

Hey, it's a better alternative that crating your baby while you're away.

You're only as fancy as your toilet paper

I don't see the point in overly elaborate public restrooms.  I think public restrooms should be clean and committed to their primary purpose.  I don't need a sofa on which to recline in the event that I'm stricken with the vapors or some other similarly antiquated ailment.  I don't need an open floor plan or an atrium. 

However, if you cater to the type of pretentious clientele that prefers to take a dump in a lavish women's "lounge", you might want to consider investing in some high-end toilet paper as well.  I mean, seriously.  If I have to navigate through a serious of halls and seating areas while trying to discern if I'm in a bathroom or dressing room, I should at least be greeted with some ultra-plush toilet paper.  Heck, I'd settle for some Charmin Basic.  But what do you offer visitors of your women's lounge, Macy's?  The thinnest single-ply toilet paper I have seen in my 33 years on this planet.

For shame, Macy's.  For shame. 

6% gay tax

I know it’s only my second post, but I’m going to rant about the fact that I can’t get married again.  I promise that this will not be the only topic I address on here (but I have a feeling it may feature prominently).

Here’s the thing.  I believe that people who have religious objections to marriage between two people of the same sex have every right to hold that belief and to teach their progeny that such relationships are an abomination.  My mother, for instance, held all sorts of religious beliefs with which I now disagree.  She believed that the following things were sinful:  women cutting their hair, women wearing pants, women shaving their legs, women thinking, etc.  Although she had every right to try to pass those beliefs on to me, I guarantee that every person reading this, including the religious, would think it absurd if she had tried to convince her elected officials to legislate these strongly held personal beliefs.  (Fortunately, my mother also believed that engaging in the political process was sinful, else she may have tried to so influence her local and state officials.)

There seems to be this misconception that religious beliefs and ideals are at the foundation of our laws.  This may be because at least 3 of the 10 commandments feature heavily in our legal system, particularly prohibitions against murder, theft, and perjury.  As we should all know by now, correlation does not beget causation.  These types of prohibitions appear in our legal system, not because they were commanded by God, but because they are all behaviors that directly impact other people.  If I kill, steal, or lie, I directly harm someone else.

And this brings me to my point.

If Kate and I were allowed to legally married, our union would not have any discernable, direct impact on any other marriage.  But the prohibition against same sex marriage directly impacts and disadvantages us on a regular basis.

Let me give you an example of today’s disadvantage.

Kate and I make every attempt to legally intertwine our lives in every way we can imagine.  As good, practical lesbians, we also try to anticipate every possible scenario and to have back-up plans for our contingency plans.  Our bank and savings account are held jointly.  When we bought a home, we made sure the deed indicated joint ownership with rights of survivorship, so if one of us meets an untimely demise, the home will belong to the other clear and outright.  We met with an attorney yesterday to discuss our end of life paperwork and having a will drafted to ensure everything passes from one to the other with as little hassle as possible.  When I bought a new car a couple of months ago, we put it in both of our names.  If we could get married, most of these types of things would be automatically conveyed benefits that most heterosexual couples take for granted. 

This morning, we went downtown for Kate to renew the registration on her car and to have the lien removed from the title, since we paid her car off when we bought mine.  Since we were already in the building, Kate wanted to inquire about having me added to the title.  Her reasoning is this:  Since we do not yet have wills in place, she didn’t want me to lose the car I had already helped pay for if she were to die in the next couple of weeks.  (Like I said earlier, we like to be prepared for anything and everything.)

When we went to the title office, we were told that I would have to pay a 6% sales tax on the current value of the car in order to be added to the title.  We were then told that only first degree relatives (parent-child) and spouses are exempt from this tax.  So, in order for me to have a legal right to a car I helped pay for, I would have to pay about $700 in taxes – all because I’m not allowed to get a marriage license for $35.50 in the office across the hall from the title office.  Additionally, we’re having to fork over $500 to have our end of life paperwork drafted by an attorney, all in an attempt to approximate the benefits conveyed by a marriage license that costs $35.50.

Let’s review the numbers:

·         Costs associated with being a gay couple in the Osman-Damron household this week:  $1,200

·         Cost of a marriage license that would forego the above costs:  $35.50

·         Potential savings for the Osman-Damron household this week if they could get a marriage license:   $1,164.50

In other words, Kate and I are being ‘fined’ $1,164.50 just because some folks don’t approve of our relationship, when that relationship in no way directly affects anyone but us. 

So, here’s a deal I’m willing to make with the religious right who prevents marriage from being an option for me and Kate:  If you let us get married, I promise to never ever perform acts of lesbian sex in your churches.  If you don’t, you better get some Gallagher-tarps for parishioners in the front pews, ‘cause it’s about to get real wet and messy all up in your altar.

I need to find a cousin to marry, because at least that's legal

I happened to run across the license for my teenage, heterosexual marriage while sorting through files tonight.  I remember when Jason and I were getting the license, the clerk asked us if we were related.  We both just chuckled, thinking it was a rural joke.  But the question is actually on the marriage license. 

Jason and I were not related in any way.  Even if we had been, we could still have gotten the license, as long as we were more distantly related than second cousins.  I mean, in Kentucky, we could have had the same great great grandmother and still been permitted to marry.

Now, some 14 years later, there's nothing I'd like more than to marry my current partner of nearly 6 years.  But I can't.  Not because we're related (as we're not), but because we're both legally women, and Kentucky prohibits marriage between two people of the same sex, as do most states.   

Despite hillbilly stereotypes, Kentucky is pretty conservative as far as laws pertaining to cousin marriage.  Kentucky law prohibits first and second cousins from marrying.  Nineteen (19) states have no prohibitions against cousin marriage at all, and an additional seven (7) states allows 1st cousin marriage under some circumstances.  Only six (6) states allow same-sex couples to marry.

Let me break that down for you:  4 times more states allow first cousins to get married than allow same sex couples to marry.  4 times. 

So here's my question:  What kind of backwards, redneck country is okay with cousins getting married but thinks two people with vaginas getting married will destroy the moral fabric of our nation?  I really need to find a cousin to marry and make me some purebred babies.