When I'd clean out my rack or my desk on the ship, I'd just dump a load of stuff into a box and bring it home. There'd be money from various places, half-filled notebooks, printed emails, awards, disks, and whatever else happened to be around...like the rubber duckie floaties.
When I root through the boxes, some stuff gets tossed (or shredded as necessary)--scribbled lists of names, long-useless bits of paper dealing with folks who used to work for me, sections of messages--and sometimes, I wonder if those might not be the most interesting bits. The day-to-day trivial stuff that time wipes from the memory.
But I can't keep it all.
The desk chair broke again, for the last time. When the arm broke off, we fixed it, but now a weld has given at the bottom and the dratted thing cants sideways.
Emptied more of the boxes from the third bedroom--some of these were packed from the move from Mollison to Kenwood, and some were from the move from Kenwood to here. Amazing how much of it got trashed...when it's in a box for one to three years, we obviously don't need it. Now there are a few things that need sorted, most of it "file" or picture stuff, and the rest office, school, or computer related stuff. Since I emptied the cupboard under the stairs for the bicycles, there are a few of the folding chairs in bags that need to go somewhere. I shall set them up between the bookshelves and make a reading nook. ;o) As if we don't read in every room of the house. And I do mean every room. Except perhaps the cupboard under the stairs.
Tomorrow, it's back to work. There's orders for San Diego in the queue again, and I'm asking again. At least most of the Japan orders are gone.
Comfy black leather desk chair, a bit battered, arms missing (small holes where they used to attatch), still rocks back and still moves higher and lower. Three dollars from the thrift store.
Yeah, this'll do for a bit.
The California Supreme Court made the right decision today. No member of the government, mayor or otherwise, is above the law, and I personally don't believe that members of government are free to engage in civil disobedience. Mayors aren't allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to follow, or else the whole system breaks down.
I am still fully in support of civil unions in any combination and quantity, still in full support of contract unions as Heinlein described (as in, marriages for specific terms), and still don't care who wants to stick what into a consenting adult. Heck, I don't even care if close kin marries, so long as they don't inbreed.
I am still 100% behind the idea of replacing "marriage" with civil union at all levels of government, and making marriage itself a completely religious ceremony. I'd like to see state and national laws changed accordingly. Oh, and I'd like a flat tax, please, so that single folks don't have to pay more than couples. And while we're at it, let's make sure that widows and widowers can keep their deceased spouse's pension when they remarry.
I'd like to see my husband's sister, her husband, and hubby's other sister be able to form a legal union that guarantees that there's no way that the married sister can lose the children if something happens to her husband and sister (the biological parents). (If they wanted, of course.) The youngest is nearly 18, so it's almost a moot issue for them, but still. There's the house, the cars, and all of the other things that would be naturally inherited in the case of a union, but must jump through legal hoops otherwise.
I've known some truly lovely people that wouldn't be able to form a legal union if they followed their natural desires, and I want them to be happy. I want them to have kids, if they want. Adopt them, if they choose. There's plenty of kids out there that need loving homes, and family composition ought not matter. It's better than an orphanage or the foster care cycle.
But I firmly believe that we cannot let government get in the habit of ignoring law. I also don't think the courts should make law; that isn't their job.
It's a nasty pickle, and I hope we get it all sorted out soon.
(One reason I'd like to see marriage become strictly a religious ceremony is that it does protect those religions who chose not to marry same-sex couples. I think too many religious people see the issue as an assault on religion itself, and have visions of churches being sued to perform marriages that they believe are wrong. I don't think forcing churches to do that is right. It's from issues like this that we get schisms that form new sects. Don't like the church's stand on the issue? Split off and form a new church. Happens all the time.)