September 29, 2007 was the happiest day of my life.
But now my happiness is being undermined. Not by my lovely wife, but by all of these Californians who, starting today, are getting legally gay-married. How can we maintain our marital bliss when all around us other people are feeling blissful with partners of the same gender? It’s degrading, the Pope says, and who can argue?
Okay, it’s hard to be snarky about this issue, I’m too sentimental. Discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and other sexual identities is one of the last remaining officially-sanctioned forms of inequity in our culture, and it’s incredibly moving to see the joy on the faces of so many newly-married couples as the barriers come (belatedly, tentatively) tumbling down.
Today is a big day. If anyone is in need of some good last-minute wedding vows, you are welcome to borrow ours. The algorithm was simple: take the Form of the Solemnization of Matrimony from the Book of Common Prayer, remove all the references to God (there are a lot of them), and sprinkle with some quotes that express your own feelings. Also, substitute appropriate names for the numbers.
OFFICIANT: Dearly Beloved — We are gathered together here today to witness the joining of [1] and [2] in Matrimony.
Marriage is an honorable estate: and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, and soberly.
Upon completion of the ceremony, we understand that one is not obliged to remain utterly sober, nor for that matter perfectly discreet.
The estate of matrimony attempts the impossible: to formalize the love between two people. In the words of W.H. Auden:
Rejoice, dear love, in Love’s peremptory word;
All chance, all love, all logic, you and I,
Exist by grace of the Absurd,
And without conscious artifice we die:So, lest we manufacture in our flesh
The lie of our divinity afresh,
Describe round our chaotic malice now,
The arbitrary circle of a vow.By our presence here tonight, we elevate conscious artifice to a heartfelt celebration of the uniting of two lives.
Then shall the Minster say unto [1],
O: 1, will you have 2 to be your partner in life? Will you love her, comfort her, honor, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keeping only to her, so long as you both shall live?
1: I will.
Then shall the Minster say unto [2],
O: 2, will you have 1 to be your partner in life? Will you love him, comfort him, honor, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keeping only to him, so long as you both shall live?
2: I will.
O, to 1: 1, will you take 2’s hand and repeat after me.
I, 1, take you, 2, to be my partner in life,
to have and to hold from this day forward,
for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish, till death us do part;
and thereto I plight my troth.O, to 2: 2, will you take 1 hand and repeat after me.
I, 2, take you, 1, to be my partner in life,
to have and to hold from this day forward,
for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish, till death us do part;
and thereto I plight my troth.Then shall they again loose their hands; and 1 shall give unto 2 a Ring in this wise: the Officiant taking the ring shall deliver it unto 1, speaking their name out loud, to put it upon the fourth finger of 2’s left hand. And 1 holding the Ring there, and taught by the Officiant, shall say,
1: I give you this ring as a symbol of my enduring love.
Then 2 shall give unto 1 a Ring in this wise: the Officiant taking the ring shall deliver it unto 2, speaking their name out loud, to put it upon the fourth finger of 1’s left hand. And 2 holding the Ring there, shall say,
2: I give you this ring as a symbol of my enduring love.
O: Together we have gathered to share our blessings with 2 and 1 as they begin their lives together. As Rainier Maria Rilke once advised a young poet:
“We must trust in what is difficult. It is good to be solitary,
for solitude is difficult. It is also good to love, because love is difficult.
For one human being to love another human being: that is perhaps
the most difficult task that has been entrusted to us, the ultimate task,
the final test and proof, the work for which all other work is mere preparation….
Love consists in this: that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other.”Then shall the Officiant speak unto the company.
O: Inasmuch as 1 and 2 have pledged their troth, I now pronounce them together for life. You may celebrate as you wish.
Congratulations to everyone getting married today! Go plight those troths!
They are already allowed to do that. Publishing in scientific journals is, in principle, open to everyone. So, just like a paper by a Congress member won’t be rejected just because he isn’t a physicist, Sean’s input on this topic should not be disqualified merely because he is a physicist.
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Suppose that all humans decided to eschew offspring –or voting or traffic laws. Is the categorical imperative a valid reason to encourage conjugal unions that at least provide an opportunity to reproduce?
Marriage! What a boring topic. Anyway, Sean’s post was mostly above love. Now that is an interesting topic. For example, I believe that love needs to be debunked, just as faith has been debunked. Like faith, love is an irrational state of mind, and leads to much harm to oneself and to others. Yet somehow all this damage caused by love is accepted as natural and worth it, just like car megadeath (every year over a million people die in car accidents) has been tolerated by society.
Joshua,
Wikipedia is not only infallible but, in this case, it happens to be right :-). I, as an Aegean archaeologist, should have noted that polygamy comes from Greek: poly (many) gamos (marrying) — which theoretically covers both polyandry and … um, polygamy.
That’s the problem, isn’t it. Default position = male. ACLU = default position. But I’m sure they’ll help me should I want to marry four husbands.
Why not have “trial” marriages where they could be renegotiated once a year – say february 1 – I mean is not the idea to have the most beautiful life possible?
Thanks for that lovely post, Sean.
My friend Andy once articulated the ideas of your first paragraph as: “If gays can marry, I’ll love my wife 20% less. And I’ll start kicking the dog, too.” But yah, it’s hard to be snarky, it’s too sweet. When the verdict came down, I was completely bowled over, then couldn’t stop smiling for three days. Equality. We get to be equal!
I’d been happy with registered domestic partnership — same tax status, inheritance, adoption, etc. But the blank look on straight folks’ faces when you say, “RDP” – wow. I hadn’t realized how unequal “separate but” was until we got a shot at “equal.”
(Too bad the comment thread slid down the slippery slope.)
dave lasagna
not to pick on you, as i typically admire those who post opinions that run counter to the ‘groupthink’ that is so prevalent in academia and in elitist circles, but you make some errors.
1) july 19 2008 has not yet occurred in the reference frame from which i’m posting.
2) i agree that physicists are no more capable of commenting on society than any other member in it. what that poster may have meant was “because physicists often possess excellent analytical skills, they can more readily determine the causes, effects, and possible solutions to societal problems”. i certainly agree that ‘elitism’ a la’ “i know better than you” is no good whether it comes from harvard or mount patmos. nonetheless, as jon stewart put it, “I WANT the president to be elite”, that is, I think we all desire an effective and competent leader.
you are certainly right to demand that physicists who wish to shape public policy adhere to the same standards as anyone else.
3) i am not living in california, and am not really aware enough to comment about whether “judicial activism” is indeed occurring. it was disheartening to me that so many referenda in the past have conclusively determined that americans remain opposed, as a populace, to permitting gay marriage. however, as important a metric as public opinion is to determining what laws to make, we must remember that the constitution was written to protect us from ourselves (by us i obviously mean white, landowning men, a group in which i do not yet belong).
4) serbo-croatian is no longer a single language, but has rapidly split into bosnian, croatian, serbian, and montenegrin. am i missing any?
so to conclude, i agree that physicists are a bunch of pompous jerks who couldn’t fix their car. i’m one of them, and surrounded by them. but why should my blue-collar uncle from peoria not be allowed to enjoy the same rights with respect to his ‘spouse’ as those that are bequeathed upon heterosexuals. they have been together 30 years, and if one was dying in a hospital, spousal visitation would not apply? regardless of whether one finds homosexuality “abnormal”, “normal”, or “disgusting”, it is an undeniable civil rights violation, regardless of any majority opinion. ask yourself; what would a referendum taken in regard to the legality of slavery had as an outcome in 1800? (even assuming the slaves could have voted)