wedding bell blues
Alan and I attended a church wedding yesterday. I had been dreading it; I hate weddings and try to avoid them. But the bride is a friend who has been very kind to us. She is the one who drove Alan and me up to Vancouver on short notice a year ago to be legally married. So, I felt obligated.
Once upon a time, I could just ride along with the ceremony and get into the spirit of things. Now, all I could see behind the words was the oppression they have been used to justify, including that of women. I have always balked at the masculine pronoun for God, so I just felt pummeled yesterday. And overall, it just feels that the whole "traditional" wedding thing is a show that most people don't really believe in, but if it's a show that doesn't hurt you personally, then you don't care.
One part that especially galled me was when the officiant said that marriage was, among other things, for the procreation of children if it be God's will. I know for a fact that the sentence is optional in the ceremony -- and it was omitted in the booklets that were printed for the attendees. I don't know if it was a political statement on the part of the clergyperson or not. I do know that the couple yesterday are beyond child-procreation age. Besides the obvious, I also wonder, what about adoption? "Procreation of children" -- I guess adoption is the consolation prize for the lesser children of God.
Why do they have to take love and narrowly compartmentalize it? Why, when there are so many different kinds of families that exist (some of them even functional), does society cling to a stereotype that doesn't work for most people?
Anyway, I am happy for the couple and I do wish them the best. But I have to admit that sitting through the service was a chore. I can sit home and feel alienated; I don't need to go out of my way.
Once upon a time, I could just ride along with the ceremony and get into the spirit of things. Now, all I could see behind the words was the oppression they have been used to justify, including that of women. I have always balked at the masculine pronoun for God, so I just felt pummeled yesterday. And overall, it just feels that the whole "traditional" wedding thing is a show that most people don't really believe in, but if it's a show that doesn't hurt you personally, then you don't care.
One part that especially galled me was when the officiant said that marriage was, among other things, for the procreation of children if it be God's will. I know for a fact that the sentence is optional in the ceremony -- and it was omitted in the booklets that were printed for the attendees. I don't know if it was a political statement on the part of the clergyperson or not. I do know that the couple yesterday are beyond child-procreation age. Besides the obvious, I also wonder, what about adoption? "Procreation of children" -- I guess adoption is the consolation prize for the lesser children of God.
Why do they have to take love and narrowly compartmentalize it? Why, when there are so many different kinds of families that exist (some of them even functional), does society cling to a stereotype that doesn't work for most people?
Anyway, I am happy for the couple and I do wish them the best. But I have to admit that sitting through the service was a chore. I can sit home and feel alienated; I don't need to go out of my way.
posted by Daniel wbc at 3:07 PM
4 Comments:
Last September Emilio and I attended the wedding of our good friends.
We had a good time, but it seems like we spent a huge amount of explaining why gay couples are second class citizens.
We were the only gay couple there and many knew of our immigration struggle. We ended up answering questions like, "If you married in Boston, can you sponsor Emilio?
Will the New Jersey laws include immigration rights?
Why are Domestic Partnerships/Civil Unions different?
You always get the devil's advocate and one thing I really hate is the devil's advocate.
Alan and I escaped shortly after the ceremony. We caught the bride before the beginning of "official" receiving and slipped out the door while most folks were on the buffet line. I didn't want to small-talk and I didn't want to educate and advocate.
Devil's advocates can afford the role when the issue doesn't affect them personally. Very frustrating.
Now, all I could see behind the words was the oppression they have been used to justify, including that of women.
Amen to that.
On a separate note, devil's advocates drive me nuts. Why does anyone want to play that game?
I had the exact same experience in June of last year. To add insult to injury it was a Catholic mass in Ohio which, in 2004, passed one of the most restrictive anti same-sex marriage amendments. Although the bride is a dear friend I was actually glad to have to miss the reception. People just don't get it...
Post a Comment
<< Home