Kate’s enduring a classroom full of douchebros this semester.
And I do truly abhor the cult of crossfit.
If you have someone who you think is the one, don’t just sort of think, your ordinary mind, and think, ‘Oh, OK, let’s make a date, let’s plan this and make a party and get married.’ Take that person and travel around the world. Buy a plane ticket for the two of you to travel all around the world and go to places that are hard to go to and hard to get out of. And if when you come back to JFK, when you land at JFK, and you’re still in love with that person, get married at the airport.
1. I refer to the event simply as a wedding, as opposed to a “gay” wedding or “lesbian” wedding or “same sex” wedding because I believe marriages are marriages and weddings are weddings, and it’s 2013.
2. I’ve edited the text slightly, removing the welcome and introduction (for privacy and length), as well as removing the last names of the brides (since virtually none of you know them).
3. thank you for your kind words of encouragement last week as I freaked out a bit as the day grew close… apparently I did alright, since I had 4 (four!!) job offers as officiant for future weddings before the reception was over (including the wedding coordinator who wants to “pimp” me out at “$500 a pop!”).
4. in the interest of full disclosure, there are two short sections where I borrowed (re-stated or paraphrased) portions from widely available wedding ceremony texts found online, but the rest is mine (other than the Good Will Hunting and Leonard Cohen quotes… duh).
5. if you’re interested, the text follows the ‘read more’ link, below:
“American males enter adulthood through a peculiar rite of passage - they spend most of their savings on a shiny piece of rock. They could invest the money in assets that will compound over time and someday provide a nest egg. Instead, they trade that money for a diamond ring, which isn’t much of an asset at all. As soon as you leave the jeweler with a diamond, it loses over 50% of its value.
Americans exchange diamond rings as part of the engagement process, because in 1938 De Beers decided that they would like us to. Prior to a stunningly successful marketing campaign 1938, Americans occasionally exchanged engagement rings, but wasn’t a pervasive occurrence. Not only is the demand for diamonds a marketing invention, but diamonds aren’t actually that rare. Only by carefully restricting the supply has De Beers kept the price of a diamond high.
Countless American dudes will attest that the societal obligation to furnish a diamond engagement ring is both stressful and expensive. But here’s the thing - this obligation only exists because the company that stands to profit from it willed it into existence.
So here is a modest proposal: Let’s agree that diamonds are bullshit and reject their role in the marriage process. Let’s admit that as a society we got tricked for about century into coveting sparkling pieces of carbon, but it’s time to end the nonsense.”
Yep. My wife would have been supremely disappointed if I got her a diamond. She still gets questions to this day about “why didn’t he buy you a diamond?”
Yeah, there were "kinds of marriages." I'm guessing it's because of the culture that they had in that era. Treating women as commodities was quite common during ancient times. I'm not really a fan of their marriage practices. What I do know was that during Jesus' time, He didn't follow/He modified the Mosaic law -- which is why His followers don't practice them anymore. Extreme asceticism was changed to altruism. I sometimes wonder why people bring up the old testament most of the time.
Well, sure… I mean that sounds good. And it’s what I think most people would like to think of Jesus. Except Jesus did command in Matthew 5:18-19 that all his followers should continue to observe Mosaic law:
“I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
So, was “its purpose” achieved? And, if so, why do we still have so many different interpretations of the Good Book, especially on social issues that have clearly undergone an evolution not just in modern times but even during the period that the scriptures were written?
In response to the gentleman on Facebook (previously), and following up on a question asked of me yesterday here on tumblr, I went ahead and did a little research on the topic of marriage forms found in the Christian holy book.
1. Beginning with Genesis 2:24 we find “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” And then in Exodus 20:14, most often cited in connection with the earlier Genesis command, we read “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” I think these two verses are what most Christians are referring to when they use the phrase “Biblical Definition of Marriage,” but if I’m wrong about that please let me know.
But it seems there’s also the following alternatives :
2. Levirate Marriage, found in Genesis 38, where a widow who had not borne a son is required to marry her brother-in-law and submit to him sexually.
3. Man and wife and concubine(s). See Abraham, Gideon, Solomon, et al.
4. Deuteronomy 22 requires a woman to marry her rapist. Though, to be fair, the rapist is required to pay the victim’s father for his loss of property.
5. In Genesis 16 we see God allowing the acquisition of a wife’s property including her slaves.
6. If you were a male soldier at the time of Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 21, you were allowed to take virgin girls of your vanquished enemies as wives, and the girls are required by God to submit to their new marital masters.
7. Polygamy, of which there are numerous examples (sometimes in addition to their concubines)… Lamech, Esau, Jacob, Ashur, Gideon, David, Solomon, Rehaboam, and on and on and on.
8. Forced coupling of one’s slaves, on display in Exodus 21. It doesn’t appear in the scriptures that the women had any say in this matter. And, of course, these twice-enslaved women are again Biblically required to submit to their new husbands.
I mean, I don’t get this argument. At all.
But I really really don’t get it when a person-of-color is making it (as this dude is). I just, um… my brain hurts now.
The scene outside the Supreme Court this morning.
A historic day in the fight for equality!
Sometimes I even call her my girlfriend.