I went to a gay wedding once. That's what the couple called it, and that's what it was: a wedding, replete with ivory-colored invitations that arrived in the mail on high-quality parchment. They read something along the lines of, "We invite you to join us in celebration of our union in marriage" at such and such a time at such and such a church. An organ played the wedding song. A minister presided over vows and rings. There were flowers, cake and matching tuxedos. It was beautiful, and it was ridiculous.
I sat in the pew and stared at the giant asterisk suspended above the couple's heads. The asterisk led to a footnote somewhere in my mind that read: *not really a wedding. Much as I tried, I couldn't bring myself to believe in the authenticity of this ceremony, so firmly associated with heterosexual marriage. These two men acting out the roles of a young straight couple, reciting the familiar lines: "to have and to hold, for richer or poorer . . . "
This was the late '90s, before gay marriage was legal anywhere, so maybe if I were to attend a similar same-sex wedding today, it would feel different. But I don't think so.
Last month, the California Supreme Court overturned that state's ban on gay marriage. Today, the ruling went into effect, and thousands more same-sex couples were allowed into the hallowed institution. And two weeks ago, the governor of New York announced that his state would recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere — not as big a leap, but still, it made same-sex marriage a reality in New York.
|
My friend refers to his "husband," and I'm supposed to not react.
|
Both of these developments make me almost lightheaded with joy. Like a black frontrunner for president, it's the kind of progress that was unimaginable only ten years ago. Psychologically speaking, these two recent decisions are far more seismic than when Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2005. That event was exciting for its groundbreaking nature, but it still felt more like the renegade act of a few liberal pioneers, more statement than sea change. Today, the country's two most powerful states (combined population: fifty-six million) have declared themselves on board.
Now this much is clear: no matter what happens in the coming months (a referendum in California may overturn the decision), gay marriage is well on its way, and it's pretty much unstoppable. Years from now, when the country is populated by a generation that's never known a world without same-sex marriage, I'm sure it will feel as pedestrian as the old-fashioned kind, like it's been around forever.
But for now? Oof. What a strange time. The friend whose wedding I attended refers to his "husband," and I'm supposed to basically not react, as if it's all just part of the conversation. I can't say, "Wait, your husband? What? My mom has a husband. My Aunt Betty has a husband. How can you have a husband? We're gay. We don't have husbands. Boyfriends, partners, yes, but not husbands."
|
Comments ( 10 )
you've touched on a Hooksexup that even heterosexual couples can appreciate. Marriage is outdated, its customs archaic, and many modern individuals have deemed it unnecessary.
For myself, the idea of walking down an aisle in a giant, white, nondescript, "wedding" gown with my father on my arm in a CHURCH of all places feels like shunning my individuality to conform to traditions I vehemently disagree with. If anything, my wedding will be for my mother, my grandmother, my family-- probably even my mother-in-law.. But certainly not for me. My expression of my eternal love for someone would never include antiquated religious overtones or traditionally sexist values.
That said, as a heterosexual female I have the privilege of being able to decline marriage and express my commitment in another way--the ability to truly make a statement. I think that might be the whole point. After gay couples gain the right to marriage, saying "no thanks" might be more satisfying than you are imagining. If not, at least you can have matching tuxedos and won't have to suffer through the insufferable white gown cliche.
Personally I think that civil partnerships should be the legal business and marriage should be the religious/spiritual ceremony for those who want it.
but
Civil partnerships sound like something you do for tax purposes that can be dissolved with a couple of signatures and a mild tiff over the pilates reformer (fine but I'm keeping the yoga mat). Marriage sounds like you've decided to tie yourself to a person for life in a way that can only be dissolved with pain, anguish and possibly police intervention. It's difficult not to read that you believe gay relationships to be incapable of this level of (often unbelievably stupid)engagement.
Also many gay people do want children (no, not just the generally ignored lesbian contingent). They smell a bit and make a lot of noise but they're kind of charming once you get used to them.
I enjoyed reading this article, and wonder if the author is receiving a shit-storm from his fellow homosexuals for not toe-ing the party line about Gay Marriage.
Here's my first question: are there costs and/or issues associated with Gay Marriage that I'm not aware of? Will it hurt the enviornment? Will I not be able to send my kids to college because of it? I understand that there will be SOME costs associated with Gay Marriage: maybe an increase in taxes, or higher insurance premiums. I consider these the price of living in an enlightened society. But are there other things of which I'm unaware?
If not, then it comes down to the Christian Fundamentalists quoting scripture as to what/whom defines a marriage. So aside from the hidden cost issue, here's the only other question that matters: where is the separation of church and state in this debate? Neither religion nor the bible should be allowed a foothold in this debate; it should center solely on how Gay Marriage would affect the voting public.
My guess is that will have minimal impact on the vast majority of the public. As a comedian said once: "Why should I care about Gay Marriage? If two people want to make each other as miserable as my parents seemed to be, let 'em!"
I understand your hang-ups on gay marriage- the semantics get to me, too. My partner and I are about to become wives, which is strange, isn't it? My only problem with civil unions is that they seldom provide the full 1300+ rights/protections that marriage offers. I'm willing to put up with some ridiculous traditions in exchange for them. Besides, our wedding amounts to a quick drive to Ottawa for the papers and 20-minute 'ceremony' at City Hall and then a BBQ at our house in lieu of a reception. It doesn't have to become this monolithic, grotesque peagant.
The thing that bothers me about this is this: marriage is what you make of it. No persons love OR marriage will be the same thing as every couple carves their own meaning from it.
I'm marrying an atheist, we both are; we both grew up in totally secular households where religion was never mentioned. We haven't been indoctrinated at all and neither of us have any interest in "allowing God" into our marriage.
So, for us, it is not religious at all. It's a celebration of our bond and our love; that's IT. God has zero to do with it.
Instead of running away from it, reclaim marriage from the religious bigots who are telling people that marriage is a religious institution. It shouldn't be. A state (or province) issues your marriage license and you are in no way required to have any sort of religious connotation. Being afraid of getting married because of these connotations only further reinforces this.
love it! thanks will.
I think that your points are valid. That being said, marriage really is what you make of it. I don't care whether or not anybody gets married but it is possible to be married without the trappings of religious institutions and the other such cons you mentioned. You and your partner are the only two who can define your marriage and if you let society dictate the "shoulds" you are giving your power away. Kids/no kids religion/no religion, monogomy/open, etc. These are all decisions to be made by the two parties involved regardless whether or not you're legally married.
As a feminist I have always found marriage, which has roots as a business contract between fathers and husbands for ownership of the daughter/wife, to be distasteful. As a lesbian, I find myself angered that others decide for me that I have no right to determine whether or not I can enter into this contract. While I personally feel that marriage is most likely not what I will ever choose and that a civil union (if it is brought in line with legal equality to marriage)is much more attractive, the option should be available for those of us who want it. And for the record I have several straight friends who find the concept of a civil union to be far more attractive than a wedding/marriage, because of both the religious and the social connotations.
at the risk of sounding one-dimensional: health insurance. sure you can agitate for change in the insurance industry, but if one partner has a good health, why not share it?
scrumptious + brilliant = will doig
Add a Comment