I have to admit, I'm a little put out at Dr. Scalzi's assignment of the weekend:
Weekend Assignment #24: Tell us what the first song was at your wedding reception and why you chose that song. If you're not already married, tell us the song you would like to have played first at your wedding reception. Also, for the purposes of this assignment, those of you who have had commitment ceremonies can join in the fun (it's that whole "we're going to spend the rest of our lives together, and now we're going to dance" thing).
Extra Credit: What song did you make sure wasn't played at your reception?
As lesbians, and - as we all know - threats to the very bedrock of all Americans' Way of Life, G and I have never even contemplated a wedding. Therefore, no wedding reception either. Yes indeedy, John throws in "committment ceremony" as a sop to us not-really-married folks, those of us who live together without the benefits of legal entanglement (although we have some papers supposedly conferring terminal rights upon each other, even those seem to be in doubt nowadays), those who may have had one of those not-recognized-by-any-government, and precious few churches, ceremonies where we say good stuff and someone plays something moving on a guitar and a liberal clergyperson officiates, or not. And then you have a "reception" somewhere, if you can afford it (no parents are paying for these things, you realize or at least ours certainly weren't when we got together as middle-aged people). Or not.
The two humans in this house got together over 23 years ago, and are now in their late 50's/early 60's respectively. I loaded my shit into a van and drove it up the road to Massachusetts and moved into G's house in Newton with her and her two sons - et voilà - that was our ceremony. Maybe it's almost time to tell the story of how we met each other (given that I lived in Texas, she lived in Massachusetts - you might wonder, huh?) and managed to get together at all. Not right now, but soon. In any case, we've stayed together through the teenage years of two boys, the death of parents, two nervous breakdowns on my part, one on hers, both boys' marriages, the birth of four grandchildren, an affair (of which I have written elsewhere) on my part, numerous moves, running our own businesses, and now we are trying to figure out the possibility of retirement together: how to do it, where to do it, IF we can do it, etc. What a long strange trip it's been.
And all without a wedding, a wedding reception, and dancing to any song. We danced to "Love Me Tender" at my sister's wedding (that brother-in-law is a big Elvis fan), how about that? does that count?
Marriage bestows a lot of perks on those allowed to partake, I don't really think the J-Land Weekend Assignment should tie in to this prejudice by only allowing those who are officially coupled, and had a reception with music to prove it, to write in about it. Okay, yeah, it says if you're not married what would you LIKE to have played, but that's like the thing we used to do when we were kids - you know, writing our names with the last name of a boy we liked, Mrs Theodore Frazier, for instance, to see how it looked and giggle.
You see, I'm grumpy about this. I'm actually pretty grumpy on the whole subject of marriage in general: gay, straight, committment-ceremonied, unioned, whatever. If you're interested in some way earlier entries on this subject you can start here, then go here and here. I still don't feel substantially different than I did last November when I wrote that three-part entry. In the bad old days of 2500 character limits. Sure glad they're over now.
9 comments:
Oh, I hoped you linked this entry to the assignment. People need to read this.
You make such a good point about the "trappings" of marriage. Quite frankly, I haven't a clue what the first song at our reception was...and I know I didn't designate it. I was kind of put off by being the center of attention in this affair, I refused to allow the band to have a microphone and introduce "the new Mr. & Mrs. Aaron Fisher". The wedding does not make the marriage...that's painfully clear. What some people do with their weddings almost makes a mockery of marriage. It sees to be all show...and very little sustance.
In Massachusetts, the morons who run the state testing program asked fourth graders to write about "snow days". This in a state with thousands of immigrant children who had never had a "snow day." People who should know better are constantly pandering to the "majority" and excluding anyone who is "different." You SHOULD be pissed. I'd be proud to dance with either of you. The song doesn't matter.
Awww, sorry it's inspired you to be grumpy. Personally, the assignment just doesn't interest me. I rarely do them, you know. ;-)
Well, if it makes you feel any better, we didn't have music or dancing at our wedding. It was supposed to be outdoors and we had a tornado instead. But we hadn't planned music or dancing - just not our thing.
Bravo for saying what needs to be said. While I am a great fan of marriage or, rather, a great fan of the mutual love and commitment that marriage implies. I detest weddings and I certainly don't confuse "having a wedding" with "having a marriage." For the past several years I routinely ignore all wedding invitations, including those from my family and from my gay/lesbian friends (although I certainly admire the latter for their courage and determination in the face of heterosexual ignorance). I do, however, give each couple a gift on their fifth wedding anniversary. Surprisingly, I've saved quite a bit of money with this policy as many of the wedded couples can't even make it to five years. As for your readers who dismiss your comments as "grumpy", just how would they respond if their marriage -- or even the possibility of their marriage -- was labeled illegal by an oppressive majority? Shame on them for their lack of empathy. Given these political times, when marriage has become exclusionary and political, this assignment is offensive and in bad taste. Thank you again for saying this more eloquently than I.
Despite all the play this issue's been getting on NPR, I confess that I didn't think much beyond my "lame assignment this week, doesn't apply to me" first impression when John announce this topic. My bad. I'll have to check in on those prior entries sometime and read what else you have to say on this. I've been curious about the fact that some people who used to reject the whole wedding/marriage tradition are now fighting for the right to do it. As a civil rights issue, every monogamous permutation -from ceremony-free pairings to trial marriage to full church weddings with all the trimmings - should be recognized by the states, and any contractual commitments honored and protected. Anything less doesn't "defend" marriage, but detracts from it. - Karen
great entry, I couldn't agree more. Good for you.
I totally understand why this makes you grumpy and you're more than entitled to feel that way. Until we have a society and government that doesn't dictate whom we marry it's not always a happy subject.
Post a Comment