Gay marriage handbook

[CellarDweller]

Some time soon I want to share what I would like to do if I'm ever in a position to have a ceremony--which isn't likely.

Oh, I'd like to read that post.

I haven't given much thought to a ceremony, but I want one.

The only thing I have pick out is matching engagement rings, and wedding rings (not traditional).

[serious crayons]

This is something that Amy and I disagree on and we've had some sort of funny arguments about the "politics" of the butch-femme thing.  She's a really strong feminist and understands all the implications of the butch-femme thing that could be considered problematic.  But, still... outside of the academics of it... it's something that works for her and makes her feel happy and comfortable in her relationship.  Again, it's not something that I would choose for myself... and certainly lots of lesbians reject the butch-femme thing.  But, the reality is that there are some in lesbian culture who embrace it.

Amanda, would you mind elaborating a bit on the butch-femme thing? I mean, my folks was Methodist.  I get the concept in a general way,  but aside from pointing toward wedding apparel choices, how does it play out in daily life? What are the politics, and how is it potentially problematic for feminists?

So, the interesting thing about lesbian and gay weddings is the amount of flexibility and creativity that seems really possible since conventions about this type of wedding certainly aren't set in stone yet... the traditions of gay weddings really still seem to be in the formulation phase culturally speaking.
The amount of individuality possible from ceremony to ceremony seems like a good thing to me.

Hey, maybe instead of destroying the institution of marriage, gay marriage could open up the possibilities for more creative wedding celebrations for couples of all kinds! 

When we planned our ceremony we wanted to avoid being imitative of straight weddings.  It felt false to us.

Me too, even though mine WAS a straight wedding. It was nontraditional in many ways, because the traditions felt kind of phony. For one thing, the ceremony was conducted by my former roommate, Tom, who had just been ordained a Unitarian minister. So that was really nice! We each only had one "of honor" person, and we let them wear their own clothes. I wore a cream-colored lace dress but not a "wedding dress," and on the way to the party afterward I slipped on a jean jacket.

And Mike's brother and a friend, both musicians, provided nice gentle guitar versions of songs we loved. So the pre-ceremony music was by the Replacements:

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MZKbYjkK64&feature=related[/youtube]


and the actual wedding processional was by the Suburbs:

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbWMTOf31GQ[/youtube]

And the reception was so great I've had people tell me it was their most fun one ever, including their own!

[Jeff Wrangler]

The traditions of gay weddings really still seem to be in the formulation phase culturally speaking.

I just hope that "we" don't end up adopting the tradition of "tossing the garter." ... 

 

[Penthesilea]

By Ariel Levy
Published Apr 23, 2007[/b]

Red is a bad idea: too garish, too iconic—the whore instead of the virgin—and, as a saleswoman at Saks

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Ariel. Hold your horses!

I think red is not a bad idea at all. I wore a red dress for my wedding. And when I say red, I do mean red. Fire truck red.

So, the interesting thing about lesbian and gay weddings is the amount of flexibility and creativity that seems really possible since conventions about this type of wedding certainly aren't set in stone yet... the traditions of gay weddings really still seem to be in the formulation phase culturally speaking.
The amount of individuality possible from ceremony to ceremony seems like a good thing to me.

Definitly agreed that individuality in wedding ceremonies of whatever kind is a good thing. My wedding was traditional only in those aspects we agreed with. But we simply left out much of the stuff people think they "have to" do.
Nothing is set in stone. And even if it were, I've always been stubborn enough to do what I want anyway. It was our big day, so nobody but us set the rules.


Which of course goes dirtectly with the topic of gay weddings. Gay or straight, nobody but the two who are marrying should set the rules IMO. No instruction manual handbook needed .

[CellarDweller]

I just hope that "we" don't end up adopting the tradition of "tossing the garter." ... 

That's the one part of weddings I hate!

They call all the single ladies, and then all the single men, and they make them slip this garter up the leg of the poor woman.

Half the time, the bride throws it to her single best friend, and then the groom has to throw it to her boyfriend, so they can be the "next ones married."

 

[serious crayons]

Nobody but the two who are marrying should set the rules IMO.

It's nobody's business but theirs. 

[Penthesilea]

It's nobody's business but theirs. 

Exactly!

Why do I even bother? Annie Proulx already said it much shorter and better

Still amazing how many succinct expressions there are in such a short piece of prose.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Well...now that could be fun Jeff...think about it.

What Chuck said about it. ... Tossing the garter, I mean.

Makes me want to toss my lunch. ... 

[Jeff Wrangler]

Oh, I'd like to read that post.

My ceremony would be very simple. I don't hold with the need for a church liturgy for it. I would invite my pastor, and I would invite him to pray for me and my partner, but I would not ask him to "marry" us. I'll stick with the early Puritans, who held that nowhere in the New Testament does it say that marrying people is part of a minister's job.

There would be a table, with flowers, and two lighted candles, with one unlighted candle in a holder taller than the holders for the other two candles. Perhaps the ticky-tackiest part of the whole thing is that I would like there to be music, a processional, my favorite recording of an organ-and-trumpet rendition of The Prince of Denmark March, aka the Trumpet Voluntary, by Jeremiah Clarke (English baroque period).

Accompanied by our attendants, my partner and I would approach the table down an aisle made up of our friends while the music plays. We would take each other by the right hand and make our vows to each other. We would exchange rings, probably as part of the vow exchange. Then we would each take one of the lighted candles and together light the single, taller candle. This would be the point at which I would ask my pastor to pray for us. And that would essentially be it.

Afterward there would be cake and champagne. There would also be a large certificate, done in calligraphy and made up in advance, and everyone present would be invited to sign it.

My pattern for this is how marriages were done in very early colonial Pennsylvania. This was the way the Quakers did it; the couple stood up together in meeting and vowed to take each other as husband and wife, and everyone present was invited to sign a certificate. I've never been to a Quaker wedding, so for all I know the Quakers may still do it this way.

[serious crayons]

Cool plans, Jeff! So appropriate for a history lover.