Home > Blog >

Weddings and freedom

By Ari | Apr 15, 09 08:40 AM

So, I kind of can't believe this, but I agree with an article in the New York Daily News. And it's called In Vermont gay marriage law, a hidden victory for religious freedom. At first I saw that headline and thought, oh damn, there's some loophole that will make it legal for the Pope to eat gay newlyweds. Or something else similarly creepy and oppressive. But it's actually really sensible: Author David Benkof is happy that the new legislation in Vermont specifically provides an out to any religious groups that have issues with same-sex marriage: They don't have to provide gay couples who are getting married with goods and services.

I'm totally okay with that. This is not a pharmacist denying the morning-after pill to an unintentionally pregnant teen. This is not life-threatening, and it's not violating some "first do no harm" mandate. This is just reason to choose a different florist, one who doesn't believe you're going to hell.

Why force people to do things they feel are wrong? I care deeply about peace, justice and sustainability - so I don't take design work that promotes zoos, "happy meat," sweatshop labor, and other things I find objectionable. People make decisions like this all the time, don't they? So why, as the author of this article points out, was eHarmony forced to create a queer dating site, if they found queerness so odious that they wouldn't allow same-sex searches on their primary, heteronormative dating site? And why would any gay folks actually use the new site by eHarmony? Why not go to any one of the many, many sites out there run by and for queer people who love queer people? If we force everyone to provide services to everyone, aren't we losing the usefulness of the niche audience - the self-selecting community? Personally, I like patronizing those I can stand behind ethically. And not everyone has my ethics.

When Shira and I got hitched, we paid our favorite vegan restaurant to cater it. We rented space from a progressive, arty Brooklyn hangout. We're not into organized, hierarchical religion, so instead of hiring an officiant to approve of our union, we asked everyone in the room to marry us with a toast to fun and love. And so on. In short, we made it our own. We made it something we could believe in, something we loved.

I just can't imagine how much it would have sucked if we'd hired people who think our love is an abomination - and how much worse it would have been to then pay lawyers to sue them, if they didn't do what we wanted. Aren't weddings supposed to be about love? I think Vermont has figured this one out, and I bet their efforts will make this legislation very hard to challenge: Everyone wins.

More: Activism | Economics | Family | Human Rights | Oppression | Politics | Queer

Archives