What if you spent every day looking for One Beautiful Thing?

Bonus Post – Remember Feeling Safe?


rainbowToday marks the second anniversary of the landmark United States Supreme Court 5-4 vote in favor of same-sex marriage. Alas, the pendulum continues to do what pendulums do, and it may be swinging backward on this ruling in the future. Not surprisingly, this is one of the things that keeps me up at night.

Today concludes the current Supreme Court session. This is the day on which they typically drop their bombs, both good and bad. This year, thank goodness, there aren’t any same-sex marriage cases before the Court, but by 2017-2018 session, who knows.

We do know the Court has agreed to hear a major case about whether business owners may cite their religious views as a reason for refusing to serve same-sex couples.

Here’s my post from two years ago, written during those halcyon days when I thought the Court’s ruling meant American public opinion was on our side and federal recognition of our marriage was a permanent thing:

One Exceptionally Beautiful Thing

June 26, 2015 29 Comments

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.” – Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of today’s Supreme Court written decision

I will never forget today.

It seems like there are so many rights at risk lately, every day’s news feels like a parade of horribles. Let’s send prayers or love or light or good thoughts or whatever you believe in to the Court in the hopes they reach the right conclusions.

Love is love, my babies.

Author: Donna from MyOBT

I have committed to spending part of every day looking for at least one beautiful thing, and sharing what I find with you lovelies!

34 thoughts on “Bonus Post – Remember Feeling Safe?

  1. Well said….why shouldn’t two people in love be married. I’m so over everyone needing to fit in a perfect little, tidy box. States will still collect money for the marriage licenses, etc. and it brings more wedding revenue to bakers, venues, DJ’s, etc. so it’s good for our economy too! But I could go on and on…I once got into a heated exchange with a guy who was completely against ANY kind of gay rights and even had some ugly bumper stickers on his truck. He didn’t have an answer to which was worse in his opinion….a married gay man or a married straight man that’s cheater??? (He was a cheater who left in a huff) ha!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Unfortunately I think many of our collective values and basic human rights will come under fire with this current administration. I’m not in a same sex relationship but I fully support equal rights for EVERYONE.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. I think there is a major difference between a ‘union’ which I totally support and a ‘marriage’ which is a religious event different than a “union” but I am not going to debate the issue. I have also thought that a business can decide who they sell to and who they don’t. I might want to sell to only blondes and that should be my right. I want the Federal Government out of my life. Now if I am selling to the Federal government then they can make the rules and only than. Just my two cents.


    • So basically, you want the legal right to discriminate under the shelter of religion. That’s pretty much what it comes down to.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Here’s my two cents. If marriage is exclusively a religious union, then why are civil marriages performed by justices of the peace? By your definition, non-religious people should only be permitted unions, not marriages. The rule should be equally applied to everyone, or to no one.

      And also you are forgetting that there are religions that don’t object to same-sex marriages. So really what you’re saying is that only people who practice a few specific religions should be able to call their union a marriage. And that’s just not how the word is used.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Jan

      I’m pretty sure that if you state a contrary opinion on someone’s blog you are starting a debate.

      Why would you insert your negative opinion here, when there are so many places you can troll? This blog is about finding peace not creating discourse.

      I think you should have saved your two cents and bought yourself some common sense.

      Marriage is not always a religious event and your desire to govern “marriage” adds more government control, not less.

      Also, your narrow minded belief that someone should be allowed to decide who they service based on a religious belief or any other random idea is just that, narrow minded. Now the government has to create more laws to protect the people you want to mess with, thus more government controls.

      In the end, you will be on the wrong side of history.

      This is not up for debate either.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. As an active resister, I’m definitely mentally challenged and exhausted by the relentlessness of what this administration is doing. Each day there are several new things I need to get up to speed on. The cumulative effect as it translates into stress would be unsustainable for any individual but happily I can draw my energy from others in my group and know that if I have to take a day off then no major balls will be dropped as someone else will fill the tiny vacuum I’ve left. I feel like self-care is entirely necessary in this fight because it’s going to be long haul. As for SCOTUS, today’s decision on the travel ban is very concerning. It’s concerning in and of itself but, like you, I’m worried about future rulings pertaining to other aspects of human and civil rights. These are dark and difficult days. That’s why we need to dig deep and keep fighting.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Love to you!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Here in the religious midwest gay marriage is seen as an abomination by most communities. In 2013 when they attempted to legalize gay marriage, we had a stampede of ultra religious people (lead by the mormons) pounding on everyone’s doors and marching down the streets, yelling how homosexuals and lesbians were going to hell. It was nauseating to behold. Thankfully the gay marriage law won by a very narrow margin, but there is still what I consider to be great intolerance for gays here by our many religious fundamentalists. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

    • That makes me so very sad. Why do religious people think everyone should observe their religion? We have known so many exceptionally kind and lovely and accepting Mormons, this seems inconceivable to me. I can’t reconcile all that kindness with such judgement.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “I can’t reconcile all that kindness with such judgement.”

        Neither could I, and that’s one of the reasons I left my faith. I was a catholic and most catholics around here are hard-core anti-gay. They do not recognize their beliefs as “judgement” on fellow humans though…they see it as god’s sacred law which is to be obeyed above all else. 😦

        Liked by 1 person

      • I was raised Catholic, too. I concluded long ago that most people use religion as a cudgel with which to beat others, as an excuse to judge and to feel superior. However, I have to say I am a big fan of this pope. I hope he will help the church evolve, even a little, on the subject.


      • While I also like this pope better than the rest, he won’t get my support until he supports full equal rights for all and stops the hate. I will not accept the BS of “hate the sin love the sinner”…which is simply hate, thinly disguised.

        As you can guess, I’m not real popular with religious folk. 😀

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ha! Me, neither. That’s okay. We have each other!

        Liked by 1 person

  7. I’m all for equal rights for everyone too, but the more I read about the issue, I find that it doesn’t seem to include the rights of those who are against same sex marriage.

    Liked by 1 person

    • If you are against same sex marriage, you have the right not to have one. Period. You don’t have the right to decide whether or not my marriage is worth less than yours.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Not true, I’m not against same sex marriage. I remember a time when the surviving partner in a Long term relationship had no right to whatever material possessions that were left behind, including life insurance and superannuation even if stated in the will. Those were bad times. You dismiss religious beliefs out of hand. I want to know what happens to clerics when Gay marriage is legalised. Can they be forced? I suspect things are heading that way.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Okay, I think I’m understanding you now. I get that you’re concerned for the clerics whose beliefs are contrary to the job they are required to do. I know that must be difficult for them. But I also know that in the real world, if you’re unable to perform your job, you don’t get to keep it. I guess on some level that is unfair because the job changed after these people were hired, but that doesn’t change the law. You can’t be a government employee and be permitted to deny someone their legal rights because of your religious beliefs.

        Liked by 1 person

    • What rights would those be? The right to define lover for someone else? The right to narrow the definition of something like love that poets and philosophers have been trying to define for years?
      Your right to marriage won’t change.
      Your right to compensation when something happens to your partner won’t change.
      Your right to love someone won’t change.
      It is sad to think that by expanding your definition of love and inclusion that you think your rights are not being included. Your rights aren’t changing. Your opinion against same sex marriage might not be popular (though I think Donna has, sadly, hit upon this idea of pendulum) but your right to have it won’t change. Your right to force your opinion on someone else, isn’t a right.
      I don’t want you to take this reply as anger. I have none. I understand that sometimes, in an effort to accommodate one set of beliefs, others get shunted aside–offering one religious group the right to have a public celebration, but not another. This is unfair. It would be unfair to let one group celebrate ….pick a religious celebration you don’t observe ….and not let you celebrate yours. I get that. However, consider the flipside. How is that any fairer.
      Lastly, couldn’t we all use just a bit more love? Please feel free to reply, because I will read what you have to say.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The US Government have created most of this problem. I 100% support same sex unions. I think same sex unions can file jointly income tax. If one is in the hospital I think their mate can make choices for them. Same with death etc. We need to change the laws so a same sex union has the same benefits as a married couple. I just see marriage as a church function and a union as an out of church function but in the end they are both the same. Again, if I own a business I get to decide who I sell to/serve. If there is not enough customers, than I go out of business. The Government has no right to tell me who I can and cannot sell to. At age 77 I have lived thru the race issue. I will live thru the same sex issue and just like race, I hope both sides can find some middle group to agree on.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well, we can certainly agree on your last point!

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Good read in the Morning 🙂
    Nice post

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Being safe – that’s such a great thought, Donna. Yes, we all thought we were making progress in recognizing the basic humanity of each citizen of the U.S. But, as my friends who protested in the 60s remind me, there will always be a battle. As to the case of the baker – which happened to originate here in my home state of Colorado – since he can’t claim a right to refuse to serve someone, because that violates fundamental civil rights (you’re black so I won’t serve you, you’re blonde so I won’t serve you), he is claiming First Amendment protections: he is an artist but with religious beliefs that prohibit him from creating cakes that violate those beliefs: no alcohol in cakes, no Halloween cakes, no wedding cakes for people of the same gender. It will be interesting to see how the Court deals with an artist – however defined, a business, and the First Amendment. Or not. I kind of feel like I could write that decision today.

    One more reason, Donna, why your blog is so absolutely and fantastically wonderful. And beautiful.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Thank you! That’s really lovely of you to say.

      I honestly don’t love the idea of regulating private citizens’ right to refuse someone’s business. If I feel someone is discriminating on a basis with which I don’t agree, I have the right to boycott them. I think often, businesses that discriminate eventually go the way of the dinosaur, as they should. Interestingly, when the 2015 SCOTUS decision was published, I went to Etsy to find a maker who would print the paragraph I quoted on my blog on canvas for me. The first seller I went to refused (rather nastily, to be honest) based on her religious beliefs. I was shocked and really hurt, but I didn’t feel she wasn’t acting within her rights. I just thought she was an ass, and made a note not to give her any custom or feature any of her work on my blog in the future, which is my right. Why would I want someone who judged or disapproved of my marriage to make me a keepsake of the day it got federal recognition? It would have colored how I felt about the piece forever. And that would go double for a wedding cake.

      On the other hand, I do agree that there are sectors where discrimination based upon personal prejudices (or religion) should absolutely not be permitted: housing, financial services, employment, education, and other basic human necessities. And I guess it’s impossible to separate those from luxuries and retail and the like. And this is why it’s a good thing I’m not on the Supreme Court.

      Civil servants, however, are a whole different story. If they cannot perform their office, then they must be removed and replaced with someone who will.

      Thank you again for writing!

      Liked by 2 people

  10. There are many more of us than it sometimes seems. We, who honor and respect the idea that consenting adults have the right (and duty) to be happy are your family and friends who will always stand behind you and beside you – and step in front to protect you, if necessary.

    Liked by 2 people

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.