Define Normal
Posted By Irene C. Olszewski, Esq. on February 23, 2012
I attended a fabulous performance of the Addams Family last night at the Bushnell. In one scene, daughter Wednesday was begging her family to act normal for one night in order not to scare away her finance’s family. Grandma, who solves life’s problems with all sorts of mysterious potions, said in response, “define normal.”
Hmm. Normal. What exactly is normal?
For me, normal is staying up past 9:00 every night. (It’s more like 3:00 a.m., if you want to know the truth). I just can’t see the attraction of hitting the pillow early. That said, I know that at least half of my readers will say that normal is not staying up until 3:00 a.m. on a work night. Those folks can’t imagine not drifting off to dreamland any later than 9:00 p.m. That’s all well and good. You go to sleep early and the rest of us will stay up late. No harm, no foul.
But here’s the thing …
Ha! Sorry, I simply could not resist.
Seriously, folks, normal is hard to define. When it applies to the law, sometimes it’s really hard to define.
Think about it. All over the country, legislators spend thousands of hours debating all sorts of laws that somebody or other feels are necessary in order for our society to run smoothly. Some of those laws seem rather simple. Others, well, let’s just say others are quite odd. (That might mean I believe they are just not normal).
Why am I so obsessed with the word normal tonight? Other than the whole Addams Family thing, I mean. Let me tell you.
As an attorney, I work with a lot of same-sex couples. Many of them are married couples. They live pretty much the same lives as the opposite-sex couples I work with in my practice. They go to work, pay bills, mow the lawn and do the grocery shopping. Pretty mundane, actually. Yet some lawmakers believe that it’s not normal for same-sex couples to be married. They believe that marriage should be reserved for opposite-sex couples only. According to those folks, that’s the only configuration that is normal. Wow.
It used to be that it wasn’t normal for two opposite-sex people of different religions to marry. Now it’s pretty darn normal. It wasn’t normal for two opposite-sex people of different races to marry. Um, it looks like that’s become pretty darn normal, too. I’ve posted on this issue before but it really is worth repeating. Sometimes, what one group of people considers normal isn’t the same as what another group of people considers normal. But that doesn’t mean it’s not normal.
Love is normal. Most people would agree on that much. Two adults falling in love with each other is also normal. I don’t think I’ll get any arguments there. So if two adults falling falling in love is largely considered to be normal, why is it only normal if those two people fit one narrow definition?
Consider Rick Santorum’s narrow view on the subject. He made this statement to a gay man earlier this month:
“You’re not entitled “to special treatment under the law…[Marriage is] not a right, it’s something that has existed since the beginning of human history as an institution where men and women come together for the purposes of forming a natural relationship as God made it to be. And for the purposes of having children and continuing that civilization. It is an intrinsic good…And as a result of that, we extend a privilege. We extend certain privileges to people who do that because we want to encourage that behavior. [...]
Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship? Yes it is, but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman.”
Well, if Ricky boy is correct, I’m confused about those men and women who marry each other with no intention of ever having children. Oops, we’re encouraging that behavior. Guess they’re allowed the privilege even if they don’t benefit society. What about those men and women who marry and want to have children but are unable to do so? They received the privilege and tried to comply with the encouraged behavior but through no fault of their own, they couldn’t produce offspring. Under Santorum’s logic, does that mean those couples don’t benefit society?
Same-sex married couples have children. I know that for a fact because I facilitate step-parent adoptions all the time. For those unfamiliar with the term, it means that one person is the biological parent and after the child is born, the spouse adopts the child. (They do this because their marriage isn’t recognized in all states or by the federal government yet). Don’t those couples benefit society? I mean, if Rick says that the whole point of marriage is “of having children and continuing [the] civilization” well, isn’t that what those same-sex couples are doing?
Normal should not be defined narrowly because, folks, it’s just not that simple.
————————————
Follow Attorney O’s Midnight Musings blog on Facebook for all blog posts as well as additional stories and links of interest. Be sure to LIKE our page.
————————————
Follow the Law Offices of Irene C. Olszewski, LLC on Facebook for all posts from both of my blogs as well as additional stories and links. Be sure to LIKE our page.
——————————
Visit us on Google+ and be sure to join our circle.
————————————
Disclaimer: The information, comments and links posted on the blog do not constitute legal advice. I will not respond to any specific legal questions in the comments section of this blog. Read my entire disclaimer.
copyright 2012 Irene C. Olszewski
Comments
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.