Last week, my boyfriend proposed to me (appropriately) during the latest episode of The Big Bang Theory. It was a surprise and, after many expletives, I said yes.
The next day, gawkers asked to see my ring and for those (who I knew) that lived far away, received a photo of an awkward hand model pose in front of my living room blinds.
I expected some gasps but what I wasn't prepared for were the comments regarding the fact that my engagement ring wasn't a diamond solitaire. The sad part is my mother and some of her friends even remarked that "...maybe you could trade-up to a diamond in a year."
You see, apparently, every girl dreams of diamonds, tiaras, pink castles in pastel blue skies, and a prince with an eye-crushing diamond growing-up.
I, obviously, did not watch enough Disney movies or maybe focused too much attention on science, sports, music, and boys who barely met the Prince mold.
I was angry; seeing red - and not because I suddenly wanted what everyone thought I should have; I never even considered a diamond as something I want (nor have I ever wanted one)... I was angry because people were disappointed once I showed them the "important digit" to find it wasn't a diamond but an emerald band with small diamonds. I somehow crushed their dreams and then was interrogated by a few who wanted to know why I didn't want a diamond as if it were a problem.
An engagement ring is a physical symbol of a person's promise to a pending lifetime commitment; its size does not reflect the person's love for the other (although for some that might be the case) nor does its stone reflect how much the person cares for the other.
As I sit and type this mini-missive, I look at my ring and smile at the promise; I also look at it and know the person who bought it for me bought me the most expensive piece of jewelry because it truly reflects me, us, and our values. This lady in red is now tickled pink because I know that princesses don't live in pink castles in the skies and love isn't measured by a carat and I met (and love) someone who understands that.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Mitt a Catch When It Comes to Pitching Something Different
This coming election continues the well-needed change of our Presidential candidates' make-up. President Barack Obama became the first-elected Hawaiian-born, mixed-race President, and now Mitt Romney stands to become the first Mormon to carry a major party in a general election. While Mr. Romney is not the first Mormon to attempt a Presidential bid (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53888762-90/romney-utah-mormon-lds.html.csp), I feel it is necessary to highlight his first, as it seems we, as a "Christian nation" love to advertise our Christian roots and love for humankind, but fail to mention a candidate's religion is only as good as the one we deem acceptable or even "right." It is the dirty secret we keep covered-up in a laundry list of acceptable (yet not acceptable) "Christian" behavior.
When John F. Kennedy was running for the highest office, he stated, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me."
For those of us who subscribe, practice, and/or follow religion (especially Catholics), we may take offense at his words; in fact, for some, they interpret his remarks as abandoning his Catholic roots. However, I firmly believe the opposite to be true. Without taking into consideration his infidelity, as he, ultimately, had a higher power and his wife to answer to, JFK was staying very true to his Catholic roots in that his beliefs were, indeed, a private matter and not one for public consumption. His beliefs and his desire to not broadcast, espouse, or hide behind them embodied the separation of church and state. JFK wanted to a do a job and that's what he planned on doing; he would remain a Catholic if he stayed in the Navy or became a socialite trolling the pristine waters of Martha's Vineyard.
So, before you knock Romney, look at the man representing the Republican Party and not at the man's religion as the reason for your final choice of whether to vote for him or not. While I agree Romney's Mormon faith is a large part of who he is, it is, as a Presidential candidate, not just what he is. In other words, calling him out because he practices a faith many Americans view as different, weird, or unacceptable because we may not understand the tenets of his beliefs is actually un-American. And even if we have a basic understanding of his beliefs, it is only right that we respect them (even if you do not agree with them).
I also feel it's an opportunity that Romney can monopolize by educating the American public about a religion that is a puzzle, if not a mystery, to many. How this can be achieved is tricky; as I stated above, Kennedy separated his Catholic roots from his pending Presidential roots but separating religion from your outward self is akin to separating oil from water with your hands. Romney is not obligated to teach the American public about Mormonism nor should his beliefs be the sole focus of every question blurted his way. But, I can't help but think there is a way to for him to bridge this gap and educate a sometimes uneducated, ignorant public.
It boils down to fear and if there is a way to at least deflate the protective bubble of ignorance, I hope this election can at least ameliorate some of those fears. Then again, some Americans still believe Obama was not born in Hawaii...
I may not agree with some of Romney's stances on specific issues, but I am glad he is the clear frontrunner (and "presumptive nominee") for the Republican party.
Why?
Because change is good. Change is good even when it's uncomfortable.
While I do not believe in electing (or even voting for) a Presidential candidate because of a "first" (first African-American; first female; first Klingon, etc.), I firmly believe Obama and Romney represent the change needed in our elections. The United States is comprised of individuals who practice many different religions or even none at all. Therefore, our candidates should reflect that and should not be publicly ridiculed, questioned, or prejudiced because of their beliefs.
This election is shaping-up to be quite historical in many senses of the word; some feel our country is worse for the wear after Obama's freshman tenure whereas others feel he is doing the best he can, given the circumstances. Only history and time will tell.
But what time and history cannot tell us is who to vote for in the coming election. Therefore, it is critical that we examine the candidates as a whole and not a part even those parts (in total) create the sum person that stands before us, asking us for our vote.
When John F. Kennedy was running for the highest office, he stated, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me."
For those of us who subscribe, practice, and/or follow religion (especially Catholics), we may take offense at his words; in fact, for some, they interpret his remarks as abandoning his Catholic roots. However, I firmly believe the opposite to be true. Without taking into consideration his infidelity, as he, ultimately, had a higher power and his wife to answer to, JFK was staying very true to his Catholic roots in that his beliefs were, indeed, a private matter and not one for public consumption. His beliefs and his desire to not broadcast, espouse, or hide behind them embodied the separation of church and state. JFK wanted to a do a job and that's what he planned on doing; he would remain a Catholic if he stayed in the Navy or became a socialite trolling the pristine waters of Martha's Vineyard.
So, before you knock Romney, look at the man representing the Republican Party and not at the man's religion as the reason for your final choice of whether to vote for him or not. While I agree Romney's Mormon faith is a large part of who he is, it is, as a Presidential candidate, not just what he is. In other words, calling him out because he practices a faith many Americans view as different, weird, or unacceptable because we may not understand the tenets of his beliefs is actually un-American. And even if we have a basic understanding of his beliefs, it is only right that we respect them (even if you do not agree with them).
I also feel it's an opportunity that Romney can monopolize by educating the American public about a religion that is a puzzle, if not a mystery, to many. How this can be achieved is tricky; as I stated above, Kennedy separated his Catholic roots from his pending Presidential roots but separating religion from your outward self is akin to separating oil from water with your hands. Romney is not obligated to teach the American public about Mormonism nor should his beliefs be the sole focus of every question blurted his way. But, I can't help but think there is a way to for him to bridge this gap and educate a sometimes uneducated, ignorant public.
It boils down to fear and if there is a way to at least deflate the protective bubble of ignorance, I hope this election can at least ameliorate some of those fears. Then again, some Americans still believe Obama was not born in Hawaii...
I may not agree with some of Romney's stances on specific issues, but I am glad he is the clear frontrunner (and "presumptive nominee") for the Republican party.
Why?
Because change is good. Change is good even when it's uncomfortable.
While I do not believe in electing (or even voting for) a Presidential candidate because of a "first" (first African-American; first female; first Klingon, etc.), I firmly believe Obama and Romney represent the change needed in our elections. The United States is comprised of individuals who practice many different religions or even none at all. Therefore, our candidates should reflect that and should not be publicly ridiculed, questioned, or prejudiced because of their beliefs.
This election is shaping-up to be quite historical in many senses of the word; some feel our country is worse for the wear after Obama's freshman tenure whereas others feel he is doing the best he can, given the circumstances. Only history and time will tell.
But what time and history cannot tell us is who to vote for in the coming election. Therefore, it is critical that we examine the candidates as a whole and not a part even those parts (in total) create the sum person that stands before us, asking us for our vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
