K.T. Drasky

K.T. Drasky
San Francisco, California, USA
January 13
K.T. Drasky regularly writes about online culture on her blog KazzaDrask Media. In a print and online career that started back in 1984, she claims to have written "millions of words". She has probably published half. An accomplished digital photographer, her photos have appeared in 7x7 Magazine, the San Francisco Chronicle and Google Schmap.

K.T. Drasky's Links

Editor’s Pick
FEBRUARY 18, 2011 2:12PM

It’s Convoluted: Facebook Adds New Relationship Statuses

Rate: 13 Flag
Facebook's logo seen by 500 million people worldwide...and growing
It took Facebook awhile, but this week the behemoth of social networking sites tiptoed into the legal minefield of restrictions, bans and government-imposed definitions that gay and lesbian couples have been assigned to describe our relationships and added “Civil Unions” and “Domestic Partnerships” to the mix of Single, Married, Divorced and It’s Complicated.

Facebook, with a population of 500 million (making it the world’s third largest country, so to speak) says that these additions are in response to demands from slightly smaller countries like the U.S., France, the U.K. and Canada. Apparently it will not be a choice offered in so-called “less tolerant” places like Saudi Arabia. No reports yet on if some of our favorite U.S. states that talk about seceding and printing their own money will be leaving the Facebook Nation over another small step for the “gay agenda”, but for the most part the announcement that one can now clearly proclaim a more accurate relationship status has been treated as a non-event on both sides of the fence.

From the moment I signed up for Facebook about three years ago, the only thing more challenging than how to describe my relationship has been whether or not to reveal my age. While I managed to maneuver my birth year to “1913” making me an amazing looking 98-year-old, I went back and forth with the relationship options because none of them seemed to fit. Legally, in the eyes of the federal government I am “Single”. But it’s really hard to get your head around that concept when you have been “In a Relationship” (another Facebook option) for such a long time it seems silly to describe what you have together as something so vague.

Essentially I suppose I’m “Engaged”, although there’s no special ring, much less a date set at this point. And then there has always been “It’s Complicated” – the only option I even briefly considered as a way to describe my 2004 marriage at San Francisco City Hall – “the Winter of Love” – when more than 4,000 same-sex couples were legally married by city officials, led by our mayor at the time, Gavin Newsom (now the Lt. Governor of California). My marriage, along with all the others performed over that 6-week period was “annulled” by the state, which led to the lawsuits, state Supreme Court hearings, Proposition 8 and all the rest of the muck that has mired gay and lesbian Californians in such a tangled web that if Facebook offered an option “It’s Convoluted”, I might bite.

Of course, Facebook offers “Married” – and I’ve often thought of clicking that box. It’s how I think of myself. Nothing else fits. And, if we had managed to re-organize ourselves in that small window in 2008 when same-sex marriage was briefly legal in California, I would simply check that box (as my gay and lesbian friends here and in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont whose marriages are recognized at the state level so proudly do). But having faced the gut punch of having our marriage license revoked once, we decided to sit on our domestic partnership and hope that Proposition 8 would be defeated (the legal wrangling over this marriage ban continues in the California Supreme Court today).

Facebook’s additions of Civil Union and Domestic Partnership as relationship options are a good thing for those who truly choose to define themselves this way. In the U.K., a civil union is equal to that of civil marriage for gays and lesbians. In France, the choice to not buy into the concept of a religious marriage is open to all couples – gay or straight. But in the U.S., these terms carry the sting of second-class citizenship. The federal government hides behind the mean-spirited 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and refuses to recognize our relationships – no matter what they’re called. Rather than announce my second-class citizenship, I prefer to wait until the day when I can renounce it – for all the Facebook Nation to see.

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
a long, lone way from the well of loneliness
I'm there too. Separate is not equal--good points throughout your post.
From Maryland (the gumwad state) where we are on the verge of passing legislation pretty much permitting marriage between any two humans, I just wanted to say: This is brilliant! Rated
Things are changing in this country, I am happy to say. It is so simple, we just need to respect and love each other. Great post.-R-
Mutter, mutter, mutter....What do THEY care, anyway?

My own marriage would have been illegal in California from 1850 to 1948. I do not grant these people the right to Defend my Marriage!

My own solution to the issue, is to get the Civil Government out of the "marriage" business entirely, and the only thing recognized by the Civil Government would be a Civil Union. Any religious "marriage" would have no legal standing whatsoever, under the doctrine of separation of Church and State.

Of course, any religiously-married couple would have the right to register a Civil Union.

And Everybody -- except the government -- would have the right to define the word "marriage" as they see fit. No need to ask for permission.

Hey, the more conservative Mormons could even practice polygamy if they want, but they'd operate under the same Civil Union rules as the rest of us -- one to a customer. Anything beyond that, and they have to sort it out on their own.

Maybe one guy has three wives, he gets a Civil Union with one of them, and two of the wives have a civil union ... hmm, yeah, that fits.

You think maybe they took the wrong strategy with Prop 8? Eh?

You'd think the Mormon Church would have learned from history and wanted the government OUT of the business of deciding who can marry. Though I suppose it would be a fair turnabout for the intolerance they suffered, were it not for the passing of 150 years...

But beyond tolerance -- I celebrate committed, loving relationships. Best of luck and years of happiness to you both!
You're giving Facebook too much power. Who cares what their categories are? It's not a legal document. You don't even have to click any box. Your real friends know who you are, do you really care what pseudo friends think?

I haven't listed music or movies, so Facebook still thinks my profile isn't 'complete'. Neither music nor movies defines who I am.
It is pretty awesome that FB did this- although I wish they included it in the non-tolerant countries as well, as a kind of "F**k you" to them, but I'll take what I can get. While I'd rather have full equality, every little bit of positive support helps- Facebook included.
our website: www.tkkshow.com


Packing: All the products are packed with original boxes and tags also retro cards/ code
A ir jo rdan (1-24) sh oes ($33)
Ha ndba gs(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) ($35)
Bik ini (Ed har dy,polo) ($25)
I'm pretty much thinking "single" is always going to work for me. Great post, good progress...
A simple question: Did you check it out on your FaceBook account before posting this article?

I suspect not... When I read an AP News item about it I went and checked immediately to see if I could make my own profile more accurate... Sure enough, down at the bottom of the list were two new options... "In a civil partnership" and...wait for it... "In a civil partnership" !!!

That's neither "civil union" nor "domestic partnership"...but two identical options for some mixed-up conflation of two different statuses. I just checked it again as I was writing this to make sure and it still offers neither "civil union" nor "domestic partnership"... What's up? Is the msm merely reading FaceBooks publicity releases and not checking things for themselves? Or is it a mistake that is only on my FaceBook server? I don't know, but it was disappointing to find the goof-up after such a ta-do is made of it in the news.
I just looked..mine has both choices
our website: www.tkkshow.com


Packing: All the products are packed with original boxes and tags also retro cards/ code
A ir jo rdan (1-24) sh oes ($33)
Ha ndba gs(Coach,ed har dy,lv,d&g) ($35)
Bik ini (Ed har dy,polo) ($25)
I choose not to post relationship status. Everyone who matters to me knows I live with my "Lady Lucia." My personal life is not the business of strangers. Still, I guess the new FB categories are progress, of a sort. Actually, I think "partnered" would be a useful category for some. That's how I usually describe myself in the real world.
We live in Massachusetts and have chosen not to marry...but I think Facebook should come up with yet another term that defines a committed GAY relationship.
I too, decided to leave my relationship status blank. It's frankly none of anyone's concern, though if for some reason they were concerned, I'm sure they could always ask...

Pot smokers are scapegoated by drinkers, drinkers by fatty food eaters, and so on and so on.
Majority here. Minority there. Minority here, majority there.
Paranoia. Ego defense mechanisms. Transference (someone looks like someone who
was an obnoxious, paranoid, insulting, annoying, even threatening clown.)

Laughing all the way to the bank are the gay leaders of the religious right in the business of
taking any political foe, generally those taking frauds and monopolists to task, and associating themwith gays, the demonized. If anything the hypocritical gays resent the fear otherwise intended for
them. So those thereby afraid of being wrongly ferreted out as gay face a choice of sooner or later health
premium death spirals or "going naked," oil imports and a weak dollar, minimal mass transit,
paying for funds borrowed from abroad benefiting the ultra wealthy behind the Tea Party, water monopolies,
communications monopolies, etc.


It caused the propagation of gay GENETICALLY, so Hitler was feminine, the religious
right's leaders routinely prove being gay, virtually all murderers of gays
have proved being conflicted gays.

Associate any political foe with the demonized (and so most barbaric today,
simply make someone afraid of being wrongly ferreted out as gay--indeed,
somein Montana want it to be a status crime, just as in the Arab states.

To teach a universal lesson of freedom, equality and brotherhood / sisterhood to newly emergent apes, such that the complete prospect of deception based on paranoia, ego defense mechanisms, and transference could be understood, only the
heterosexual instinct itself was available as the basis of
scapegoating for profit.

That the hypocritical, often financially privileged, but most anti-socially GENETICALLY-PRODUCED gays, given to
let people murder, who do not care one iota about your children's future, are in the
business of sending the DEVELOPMENTALLY gay (optimal--served genetic numerical advantage FOR THE GROUP) to the lions, PROVES A SCIENCE, + THUS RELIGION.

Though based in the blushiest of ideas,
I’ve offered the utmost experimental science based controls, including the entire
human race, the whole of Earth, and our complete recorded history.

This because of, not in spite of, Western religion, Egyptian religion, the Mayan
and Aztec religions being apparent parallels or possibly outright copies
of each others’ codes, anthologies, calendars.

I maintain personalities (actually just 2, not 1, not 3, for lock-and-key value)
have been foreseen, which doesn’t in itself prove any particular esoteric
idea but sure works great with the idea, first proposed by the top originators
of computer technology, that the universe works something like a computer.

I've proposed:
* that we’re indeed being visited

* that we’re related, possibly demonstrably through partially matched mitochondrial DNA
* that these visitors are surprisingly moral-based, perhaps because

* (also proposed:) they share with us a universal mathematical fabric, at the level of
* life’s most basic energy regulation, connecting them and us with the full universe,

* actually running the full geographic extent, which is then its full time extent as
* well, and vice versa (distance is measurable by time.)_

* beyond those points, I’ve proposed informational gravity and a commonality

of spin physics combining the physics of quasars with magnetic field in your hard drive (and specifically travel being possible in
data point to data point mode, though with Dr. Hoagland’s hyerdynamic space idea potentially helping with the idea of conduits,
unless, as is entirely possible, of course, this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KoR2t-iM9k&feature=related is a hoax.)

* (actually seriously considerably more)

Said visitors may have imparted a simultaneous science - moral - history based
proof (all proving each other simultaneously, suddenly, or otherwise considered
as science proving morality and history, morality proving science and history,
history proving morality and science.)

Precisely with this happening:





I wish the options were sipmly - Loved. Then we all could have that, wether we were in a relationshp or not.

I like "Single", "Not Single" too. :)