The (Childish) View of Gay Marriage and Proposition 8

We all have memories from our childhood that we’ll never forget. For whatever reason, I have an absurd amount that I remember clearly, but I can’t remember the name of the new girl at work or that man I emailed with about a computer help question last week.

For me, some memories, like the one I’m about to share, really stand out years later. We were all four years old and a group of us were eating lunch around a rectangular table in our nursery school. I don’t know any of the context beyond that, but I can assume we were talking about how kids of the opposite sex have cooties. (Really, what else could we be talking about besides that, toys or birthday parties?)

Daniel, my best friend at the time, grabbed my juice box and made bumped it into mine.

“Boys marry boys, girls marry girls and juice boxes marry juice boxes!” he exclaimed with a matter of fact in his voice. Of course none of us stopped to think about how that’s not how the world works because, well, we didn’t know that. At the time, his idea seemed to make sense.

Little did I know, of course, that this four year old’s dream of how things in our society should operate paralleled the deep desires of countless homosexual and heterosexual people in our country. On a day to day basis, how many people wake up wishing they could be legally married to their partner? How many (straight) people are pained by the fact that their friend or family member can’t marry the person of their choosing? The numbers are of course beyond my wildest ideas and I have no way to quantify these wishes.

That said, we all know that gay marriage has been an exceptionally hot-button issue in this country for quite some time now, and only has become more of a heated topic in the past week over California’s decision to slam down Proposition 8, or the law that says that gays in the state can’t legally marry.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I had always considered the State of California to be a pretty liberal one-- much more than other areas of the country where minorities are still treated unfairly across the board and where legislation has only superficially outlawed their mistreatment. Even when I was in the third grade and figuratively married to my best friend, we’d tell everyone that we wanted to actually get married. Did we know the implications of this statement? No, of course not. But did we know where we should go if we really wanted to get married? Yes, to California. Disneyland, to be exact. Because who wouldn’t want to get married in Disneyland?

So now, over the past year and the vote for Proposition 8, many Americans have grown disappointed with California . We’re saddened by it’s lack of liberalism and acceptance that we had always admired as one of its impressive and positive qualities.

Fortunately for the gay population in both California and, I think we could argue, the rest of the country, California has overturned this law-- for now. Of course it’s going to be an ugly, uphill battle from here, one that will involve The Surpreme Court, thousands upon thousands of protesters and countless dinner table debates.

What’s interesting, though, is that it seems at least that the kids of my generation (or the ones that I was surrounded by) got it right from the beginning. It’s clear that none of us would have been phased by marrying a child of the same gender (in some sick world where kids could get married) and that it would, in fact, almost be considered “more normal” for girls to marry or for boys to marry each other in our culture of cooties and disgust for the opposite sex. We were kids and we considered close relations between girls or between boys acceptable. Now we’re adults and a huge percentage of our country, including the majority of voters in California, now oppose these social and romantic ties. What happened?

This is a time where I’m going to say that we have to take a lesson from the kids. Think back to your childhood, when it didn’t matter who married who, as long as they were happy. Maybe our country isn’t ready for juiceboxes to marry, and I’d honestly venture to aruge that there’s not a single protester fighting for this cause in front of the California statehouse right now. But shouldn’t we be at least ready to accept the loving and happy ideas of some innocent kids who held a very serious business meeting over peanut butter sandwiches?

Here’s a New One: American Royalty Marries a Jew

When a friend suggested that I blog about Chelsea Clinton’s wedding to Marc Mezvinsky, I definitely considered it but wasn’t really sure what angle to take. Everyone and their mom had been speculating about this wedding and its celebration for weeks, yet all we seemed to know for sure was that the guests would be using rented porcelain porta-potties. And now, even though it’s after the fact, we don’t know a ton more about the event, although we do know that the food options included vegan and vegetarian and gluten-free choices-- the most thrilling and important details, of course.

So I got it into my head that I’d write about the wedding. As did everyone else who writes anything about current events, celebrity gossip or anything relating to the two. But what, really, could I comment on that would be unique and not yet over-written?

Discuss how Chelsea married a Jewish man, of course, this friend suggested. Not only that, but also how so many “famous” gentile women in America have chosen to marry Jewish in recent times.

Granted, this friend is a much better follower of Perez Hilton (www.perezhilton.com) and is much more up to date with her celebrity juice than I am, but I realized she was right. This has become a more common occurrence recently-- or at least a more media covered trend. She also referenced Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner as another prime and relevant example.

This idea was still brewing in my head as I stumbled across a New York Times article this morning: Interfaith Marriages Stir Mixed Feelings by Joseph Berger. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/us/04interfaith.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=clinton&st=cse). First off, let it be known that this author references the same trend, especially by noting that Caroline Kennedy married Edwin A. Schlossberg, a Jew internationally recognized for design, writing and art. The point here? My friend clearly recognized a rage before the NY Times was able to write about it. Good work, RM!

What’s interesting about this article, though, is how it illustrates the important role of religion in this ex-Presidential daughter’s big day. Sure, many interfaith weddings incorporate traditions from both of the spouse’s faiths, but in this wedding the Jewish aspects were especially apparent. Not only were the two married under a chuppah, or marriage cannopy, but they also signed a Jewish marriage licsense, called a ketubah. In addition, the groom wore a Jewish prayer shawl, which, as the author noted, “even many Jewish grooms marrying Jewish brides do not wear.”

Why is all this important? Who’s going to care in a couple of years what Chelsea Clinton’s husband wore to their wedding? Don’t get me wrong, but I think if you were to ask Joan Rivers or anyone on the E! channel, it’s most important that Chelsea wore an elegant Vera Wang gown? I didn’t think that people usually commented on the groom’s attire because, let’s be honest, it’s not usually that unique or important. Unless he’s sporting his dog’s leash with his dog attached as he walks down the aisle. Then it’d be worth commenting on. And, believe me, it’s been done before.

What this article really proves, though, is that it’s become more acceptable on a societal level for both non-Jews (like Chelsea) to marry Jews, and, on the contrary, for Jews to marry outside of their faith. We see here that it has become more or less acceptable for Chelsea, a girl who is basically as close to American royalty as they come, to-- dare I say it-- marry a Jewish man. Perhaps years ago important political figures wouldn’t have wanted their daughter marrying someone whose grandmother probably stuffs everyone silly at the table with matzoh balls and kugel. However, it seems that our society has now transcended some boundaries somewhere along the way to make this happen.

Of course plenty of people (even many reading this) still find themselves opposed to this move on the part of Chelsea. Not only that, but countless people disapprove of a “nice Jewish boy” marrying a practicing Methodist.

But really, it’s interesting to take a step back and look at this situation critically from a distance. We’ve made huge steps in terms of acceptance and equality in this country. And, before you know it, maybe the White House will be serving corned beef sandwiches and kosher dill pickles for lunch. Really, you never know! After all, Michelle Obama’s cousin is Jewish, too... but that’s a whole other story.

For now, though, let’s recognize that this event in some ways marked a momentous occasion not only for the Clintons but for people of various non-Christian religions in America. Oh, yea, and that Chelsea’s wedding cost more than most of us make in the first decade of our working careers. But who’s keeping track, anyway?

Legally Married... and Dating with Permission

I’ve heard some pretty interesting stories of ex-spouses over the years. People who were divorced yet would still share a bed with their (mutual) children also living in the house. Couples who split legally yet would still date and even sleep together. Personally, I thought the point of divorce was to divorce yourself from your partner, but maybe I’ve been mislead all this time.

Then there are the stories of those not actually divorced (in fact, they’re still married) yet one or both of the partners has another significant other on the side. Whoa, confusing even in writing it, no? One example in particular pops into my mind. I know of a couple who have been married for years and years. Their lengthy marriage, though, didn’t stop a third character from entering their relationship. The husband has had a longtime girlfriend, but in no way has that caused his wife to end things with him.

In fact, what has happened since the introduction of this second woman is completely counter intuitive. You’d think the wife would be horrified, right? That she’d obviously leave her husband immediately? Nope, not at all. I know you won’t believe it when I say it, but now the couple has turned into a threesome-- although I don’t mean that in the sexual way. Perhaps I really should mean in that way, but I don’t know the details in that department.

What I do know, though, is that the three are often spotted out to dinner together and sometimes show up at parties as a group. I don’t know the specifics of their arrangement and I certainly have no idea how a wife is comfortable with sharing her husband with another lady. But maybe that’s not important. If it works for them, who am I to judge?

So for the entire time that I’ve know about this situation, I had foolishly assumed that it was unique. Who would have known, though, that these people were, in essence, a product of their time, foreshadowing an up and coming trend in America?

This week, The New York Times’s Pamela Paul just published a story called The Un-Divorced. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/fashion/01Undivorced.html). I quote the following paragraph regarding Warrn Buffet from her article-- a statement that seems to parallel the previously described scenario:

Mr. Buffett separated from his wife, Susan, in 1977 but remained married to her until her death in 2004. All the while, he lived with Astrid Menks; they married in 2006. The threesome remained close, even sending out holiday cards signed, “Warren, Susan and Astrid.”

Um... right. A holiday card from the three of them. That’s just as normal as if they were to birth a child with genes from all three of them.

Here’s another interesting one:

Jann and Jane Wenner separated in 1995 after 28 years but are still married, despite Mr. Wenner’s romantic relationship with a man.

It’s interesting to note that Wenner not only has three sons with his wife, but also another three children with his partner. Again, another situation that, at least to me, is so difficult to comprehend and rationalize that it’s difficult to type.

Now, I, for one, certainly would want to remain married and committed (legally at least) to a man who was romantically involved with another man. There’s nothing I’d want more, in fact, than to share the man I’ve committed myself to with another person. But that’s just me.

Anyway, it’s important to read the entire article to get a full picture of this current sociological trend. What I think the article provides us with, though, is an interesting commentary on the current state of living in the US.

How pathetic is it, for example, that people have to stay married just so that they can share health insurance? Or what about the fact that the legalities of divorce can be so difficult to navigate that people would rather remain components of an unhappy marriage than to deal with the obstacles of the system?

At the end of the piece, the author makes the point that “not being divorced is also an excuse not to marry.”

Touché.

Would you really have the energy in you to remarry if you had just spent decades sharing your “soulmate” with another person? At that point, I’d rather just be alone-- without any cats, thank you very much-- than to deal with marriage ever again.

Sunday Styles

People like myself are the reason that we’re all going to have to soon pay $165 per year to read The New York Times online. For those who rarely have the time or energy to sit down with a hard copy of a newspaper, our smartphones and laptops provide a quick and easy solution to getting the juice without newsprint ink on our fingers. Heck, for the amount of news I read online-- which has ultimately caused such papers to recognize potential areas of profit-- I really should earn a commission on every dollar they make. Either that or I definitely shouldn’t be paying the fee, because people like me made the fee worthwhile and valuable in the first place.

On rare occasion though, I do succumb to the joys of doing things old- school and sit down with an actual Sunday paper in hand. Usually it’s when I’m home in my childhood house, when some mysterious fairy has already placed it on the kitchen table-- right before she laid out my breakfast in front of it. Now while I normally read somewhat intelligent articles on my iPhone on the way to work, Sunday mornings at home call for a more indulgent read: The Sunday Styles.

Why, you might ask, do I automatically flip to this section? Especially coming from the girl who hates engagements and romance, how can I be so contradictory?

I think the answer is that it’s flat out enjoyable to catch a sneak peek into the lives of people we’d never otherwise encounter. As I read about Ms. Yale University the biochemistry graduate whose father is a world renowned cardiologist, I consider how bizarre her conversations with her Harvard philosophy major husband must be. Do they spend hours debating evolution at the dinner table, or perhaps they do they plan their upcoming exotic vacation?

Whatever the case, it’s interesting to get a look into the lives of strangers on their special days, to read the sometimes fascinating biographies of the newlyweds. The best is when we’re provided short vignettes that describe how the two met at a cocktail party when he spilled his red wine down her pastel colored dress, or how she knew from the start at that Halloween party that she just had to know Mr. George Bush impersonator.

What’s always been apparent, though, is that the New York Times is exceptionally exclusive and elitist. Sorry, but you’re not going to find Mrs. Manicurist and Mr. Truck driver’s announcement, although I think their story might be more interesting than two boat shoe clad and stuffy thirty-somethings.

As of recently, there’s apparently a new website that attempts to quantify exactly how many of the people in these announcements are Ivy League educated. Not only Ivy League educated, but also married by a Catholic Priest and women keeping their last names.

Meet WeddingCredential.com (see http://www.weddingcredential.com) and you too can search 3,981 NYTimes wedding announcements to see how many female Princeton graduates who kept their last names. You can also learn how many Goldman Sachs employees who graduated Summa Cum Laude have also been listed. Because we all really care about these details.

According to a New York Magazine article Columbia is the Most-Named University in the Times Wedding Pages, Columbia is the most-named university in the Times Wedding Pages. OK not funny, sorry. But really, it’s interesting to consider how NY Magazine has broken down these seemingly useless yet interesting statistics. (See http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/07/columbia_is_the_most-named_uni.html.)

First off, NY Magazine’s analysis has led me to consider the fact that the New York Times is, in reality, pretty elitist. That we all already knew. But, really, who would actually care to read about someone non-Ivy Leage educated? I won’t even begin to mention those people who not only didn’t go to top tier schools, but those who were raised by teachers or-- even worse-- wait, I can’t think of anything the Times would shun more than that.

Beyond that, I think the article makes a very significant point: it’s because of the prevalence of words like “Jdate,” “online dating,” and “Facebook” in marriage announcements that online dating as a whole has become more socially acceptable overall in America. Since we’ve been reading those words repeatedly every Sunday morning for years now, we’ve somehow begun to convince ourselves that meeting someone over the Internet is less taboo.

I also learned that if you want to try and get a three by six inch spot in the Sunday paper, you too can now search this new website. Your seach can help you find out if you’re more likely to make it in if you’re marrying a surgeon or lawyer. You can also determine if your chances are better with a man whose father was a salesman or one whose mom was a CPA. I don’t know about you, but my one and only life goal has been to make it into that section-- so much so that I’m willing to spend hours plotting a way how. (Can you believe that some girls actually do think that though!?)

So what, in actuality, is this new site good for? Besides a little fun with statistics for non-mathematicians, I’m not really sure. What I do know, though, is that we Americans are nosey. We like learning a bit or two about that handsome stranger who we’ll only meet on paper, and we feel validated by the fact that even that gorgeous woman met her soul mate online and-- gasp-- not at a friend’s party. Perhaps it’s sad that one three-page section of a newspaper impacts us this much socially but hey, we’ve gotta get with The Times, folks.

A little (Tweeting) bird told me you're proposing to me?

The idea of men proposing makes me gag. Doesn’t matter who it is, if I know them or not or how close I am with either the male or the female. The idea of a man getting down on one knee and asking the love of his life to spend the rest of his life with a women is sort of sickening to me, although I’ve been told that when it happens to me I won’t feel so nauseated. I’m not so sure.

So what’s the deal? I’m not opposed to marriage, I’m certainly not opposed to sparkling engagement rings, but I hate the engagement process? Here’s what it boils down to-- over-the-top gestures (of any kind) disturbs me.

For example, big birthday celebrations. Going out to dinner is one thing. A week long fiesta full of bar hopping, spa treatments and pricey gifts? Way out of control. We were all born and we didn’t do so much to earn that celebration-- other than perhaps not fleeing a bar with a stranger in a foreign country or saying no to riding that dude’s motorcycle without a helmet in the pouring rain.

Take this idea a step further when a man decides to pay to have his “big question” sprawled across a big-screen at a Red Sox game. I don’t think it’s cute. I don’t think it’s sweet. And I definitely don’t wish it upon myself. It’s overdone, ridiculously dramatic and not something that most people want to see.

Regardless of my irrelevant opinion, people have and always done extreme things in the name of love. I mean, people tattoo their lover’s (lovers’?) names on their arms, so really how much more ridiculous is asking for someone’s hand in marriage while riding in a horse drawn carriage in Central Park?

I’ve always said that if I actually ever tricked some poor soul into proposing, I’d prefer that he just ask the question casually and not create a whole scene. My romanticized idea is that I’m scrubbing dishes as we talk and he’s like “Hey, wanna get married?” I say “sure” and then the sink overflows because I took my eyes off what I was doing to look into that little black box for a split second. (OK, I confess, even I am not that shallow.)

Well, folks, things just got weirder with how men propose. If you’re anything like me, you’ll find what I’m about to discuss even more disgusting. According to a new CNN article, Is chivalry dead? Technology twists the wedding proposal, not only are couples getting engaged in ways as sickening as ever, but they’re doing it publicly: via the internet. (See http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/07/28/marriage.proposals/index.html).

The writer talks about men who have proposed through YouTube videos and even people who have done it by tweeting their question for god knows how many followers to see. Now, as I’ve already established, I’m not one for chivalry or romance, but really? Really?! You’re going to make your engagement not only public, but that impersonal?

Unless things have changed recently, I’ve always thought that marriage was between two people who love each other and want to stay exclusively with each other. I didn’t think that it was something that should involve your 857 Facebook friends, and certainly not the 35,000 people in the football stadium. Or maybe I’m just that uncool and bitter that I don’t have as many friends as the rest of the world. Who knows.

Point is, this new concept is weird. Even though we’re such a voyeuristic culture, some things are better left between the two people in a relationship and really shouldn’t be out there for the public to judge. (But, of course, your 35,000 stadium friends aren’t “the public,” they’re all people you care about, right?)

Believe me, I know that me posting this isn’t going to change even one thing in the way that any man proposes to his girlfriend in the future. But, for the sake of the rest of us, try to keep your proposal somewhat intimate and reasonable. I don’t think you really want to ask your girlfriend to marry you via a short and sweet Tweet-- only for her friends to respond to you on her behalf before she does.