This guest post was written by someone who wrote to me after reading my post about marrying my partner. He gave me permission to post his message on this blog.
I read your blog about marrying your partner. Congratulations. I’m glad that will work for you. I also read your post about a low-key event–glad you’re doing it that way. I want to comment on my perspective of the difference between a same sex marriage and a same sex wedding.
A marriage I can understand, in a way, though I would rather that same sex couples be able to obtain the same rights as regular married couples have by a civil union or equivalent — not calling it a “marriage.” I am among those who thinks that marriage should be for a man and a woman. But I am no legal scholar. I am chief of a fire department. What do I know about the fine legal lines between marriage and civil union — and whether you can have the same legal rights and tax benefits as I have in my marriage with my wife of 30 years?
I think what bothers me most is a same-sex wedding. A wedding conjures up in my mind a sweet young woman in a white gown, and a nervous young man in a tux waiting at the alter of a church with a minister standing ready to hear wedding vows and bless the marriage.
It makes me feel funny to imagine two men (or two women) involved in that. Especially in a church. I know, some churches accept and approve of gay weddings. The church that I have been going to for decades does not, and will not.
So from my perspective — if you want to marry your partner who you have loved for as long as you have, then fine. Celebrate your newly-obtained legal rights. But don’t celebrate a “gay wedding” with all the fanfare it brings. That is what bothers me and many others I know.
—————
BHD’s perspective
While the above message sounds rather harsh, it comes from the heart of a man I have known and worked with for years. He tells it like it is. Doesn’t hold back. I value that in him. I will remain his friend, though I don’t expect to receive a wedding gift (smile.)
To be honest, I personally am not fond of having a “wedding” — but for different reasons. I want attention to be on “us” and not on some ceremony. Honestly, I have felt the same way about man/woman weddings when the wedding planning and its ornate decorations and functions get so carried away, the guests forget that they are there to celebrate two people who join in marriage, and not the flowers, decorations, reception venue, band, cake, and the like.
My fiance and I are not planning a low-key event because we don’t want a “gay wedding” to fly in the face of those who never wanted us to be able to be married. We are not afraid or cowering in fear. We are having a marriage ceremony on the small side purely because that is our preference. We don’t want ancillary activities to take away from the fact that two people are joining in marriage. I also admit that my partner and I both are not the type of guys to go for frills and frolick. We’re just not like that.
Life is short: get married, but a wedding isn’t required.
Wow. This blog left me searching for words simply because it contains so much which could be commented upon. So here’s my ‘take’ on it all.
First, I sort of agree with you about ‘frills and frolick’ although I believe if you and BB were to have a wedding you’d have a shendig that would draw national media attention. (Can’t you just see Joan and/or Melissa or someone from TMZ thrusting a microphone up to your face as you are processing up the aisle and asking you, “Who are you wearing?” The answer you’d give, I’m sure, would be one for the ages. Come to think of it, maybe you should have a big, televised nuptial…..) In any event, you are so correct that many do get caught up in the hoopla surrounding the event and seem to forget that a wedding is a solemn ceremony binding two people together. I suspect most of your readers can attest to the craziness that can entail and how easy it is to be drawn into wedding hysteria. So perhaps the way to counteract that is to have a less lavish affair. A ceremony before a justice of the peace, at city/county clerk’s office or in front of a few friends may be just what is needed to help restore balance to what should be a momentous event in two people’s lives.
As for your friend and guest blogger, he seems to be of two minds about including gays and lesbians in marriage rights. While he does seem to recognize there is something very wrong in not allowing some sort of protection for the lives, persons and property of same gender couples, he doesn’t seem to recognize that this is a situation where separate really isn’t equal. Civil unions, for example, are not available in each state. Nor is it identically defined from one state to another in those jurisdictions which do have civil unions. By contrast, marriage is recognized in each state, in each American territory and even internationally not only through custom, but by bilateral treaty and in some instances through explicit and implicit incorporation in multilateral and international treaty. For example, the right of persons to oversee medical care of a traveling partner when that partner has been injured or taken ill while traveling outside of their home country is established in part through the recognition of their married status while no such recognition is automatically given in instances involving civil union. In the U.S., some states have taken steps to not only ban civil unions for their residents, but also refuse to recognize civil unions from other states. Marriage is recognized from state to state to state.
To illustrate my preceding point, suppose a married gay couple from New York were traveling from New York to Maryland by car and had an accident in which one of the spouses were injured. If the accident occurred in a state that recognized same-sex marriage, (NY, MD) they would have fewer difficulties in filing claims, getting fairer court adjudications, determining hospital treatment, etc., because those states recognize marriage for all. But in a state that doesn’t allow or recognize same-sex marriage, (i.e., Pennsylvania, Delaware or New Jersey), it is possible that a judge in one of those states’ courts who might be adjudicating a case arising from the accident could rule that the gay couple are not ‘married’ under the law of that particular state and therefore are merely ‘friends’ and not entitled to the same protection that a married ‘straight’ couple would automatically be entitled to claim.
Your friend’s image of a wedding is very traditional, but it also raises the question in my mind how would he feel about a non-traditional wedding between a man and a woman? I raise this because I’ve seen beach weddings, weddings done on Harleys and other motorcycles, weddings done in large public parks, even seen a mid-air wedding done by a duo who met while sky-diving. (Yep, the minister sky-dived as well as their best man and maid of honor.) If those weddings are valid for ‘straight’ couples and so recognized, why shouldn’t conventional, in-church weddings for gay/lesbian couples also be so recognized? Perhaps your friend only ‘recognizes’ church weddings to be legitimate and that’s his/her right. But most people would not make such a distinction and would say that having a wedding while astride a Road King is as legitimate and valid as a wedding in church. Because you ride a Harley, you probably have a particular point of view of which of those is legitimate and I think I know what your answer would be.
I think your friend is only now coming to terms with same-sex marriage and I hope he or she will begin to realize little will change for most people as more and more gay/lesbian couples marry. One big indicator for me of what a non-event same-sex marriage (and wedding) will be is to look at how many straight couples choose to divorce or forgo marriage because same-sex couples can now join them. Instinctively, I know the number will be so small as to be insignificant.
May you, your friend and all who choose to marry – as well as those who choose not to marry – enjoy a long and happy life.
As always, Bill, thanks for your thoughtful and at-length input. I can consider this post a twice-gifted guest blog!
I do think that my friend will come around. He’s from a rural area and deep red state and of a fundamentalist Christian background. He is among those who are slowest to adapt to cultural changes sweeping our nation. He and I will co-teach a course together next year, and I’ll have some time to speak more in-depth with him and hopefully help him learn. He is always open to learning, so I am confident that he will listen.