This is the Story of the Wedding that Wasn’t

Shout out to my partner in the Most Successful IU Mentor-Mentee Pairing in the History of IU Mentor-Mentee Pairing (title self-appointed), BLS. She’s put me on to many resources for history and teaching and thinking about professional life more broadly, but she’s also put me on to any number of books, articles, and writers that have nothing to do with our shared profession (although it’s not uncommon for us to find a way to make them relatable). In particular, and for the purpose of this post, I’m thinking of Ann Patchett.

happymarriage

Patchett’s most recent book, This is the Story of a Happy Marriage, is a collection of her essays and articles previously published in magazines – with the exception of her introductory essay, which I could go on and on about, re: my love of her interchangeable use of the word “working” for “writing” and her unabashed celebration of a good work ethic. The article for which the collection is named tells the story of Patchett’s reluctance to marry Karl, her partner of eleven years, despite his on-going desire that the two should be wed. After a failed marriage as an early twenty-something, Patchett swore off the institution. When she met and began dating Karl, she insisted that they maintain separate homes, separate accounts, and semi-separate lives. It was only when Karl was diagnosed with a terminal heart condition that she relented. Ultimately, it turned out that he had been misdiagnosed and continued to live happily and healthily – and by then they were wed. And she was glad.

While listening to a Fresh Air interview with Patchett, I was struck by her discussion of the marriage, her resistance to entering into it, and what she ultimately concluded was the main thing she had been averse to: being a bride. In looking back, she asserted that she’d not been so nervous about the relationship or even the institution of marriage, not with this man or under the circumstances (all good) under which their relationship took place. She claimed she’d had no idea how nor any desire to navigate the expectations that come with having a wedding.

Way back when, in 1988, when she’d wed her first husband, their terrible wedding seemingly predestined their eventual split. After a proposal in which Patchett’s gut instinct was to say no before the question had even been popped (of his pulling out the ring, she writes “He might as well have pulled a knife.”), she and husband #1 lived together uneasily until she gave in. “Okay, we’ll do it,” she said, months after the initial attempted proposal. On the wedding day, she lost her shoes (never to be found); bees swarmed around the flowers in her hair; the cake melted in the heat; and the couple’s car broken down on the way out of town, eating up their honeymoon time and savings. The marriage lasted fourteen months.

That experience, along with the marriage itself (and a rich family history of failed marriages), put Patchett off marriage. And, it seems, off weddings. I imagine there’s a bit of hindsight to Patchett’s proclaimed aversion to the having and hosting of a wedding, and it may well be a hindsight that could only develop once a thing is said and done. Of her marriage to Karl, Patchett writes that his illness gave them a “get-out-of-jail-free card” when it came to a wedding. They purchased the marriage license, a Catholic priest friend dropped by their home to sign it, and they were married. That afternoon, Ann and Karl went out and bought a lawnmower. Having moved in, having gotten married, having avoided fanfare, Patchett wondered what she’d been waiting for.

APandKarl

AP & Karl

I’ve thought of this story from a number of different angles. On the one hand, I love Ann and Karl’s simplistic approach to legalizing a pairing that worked pretty well as it was. But there’s something I can’t shake. Again, I suspect, to some degree, that Patchett’s claim on not wanting to be a bride may be a realization that came when she felt a sense of relief at not having had to be a bride. But the fact that such a smart, funny, together women who seems to have a pretty good idea of who she is and what she stands for (unless I am misreading her entirely in her essays) could feel cowed by contemporary wedding culture says something about just how overwhelming and seemingly monolithic and unrelenting that culture is. As someone who studies the history of American weddings – and dabbles in evaluating the modern business and culture of the celebration – I see variations in the styles of celebration and have argued that the wedding offers possibilities for any number of expressions. But I can appreciate how it appears not to.

All that said, I’d suggest that everyone has access to a “get-out-of-jail-free card” when it comes to weddings – and it doesn’t have to be used in the pursuit of *not* having a wedding. It can be used to justify any number of additions to or subtractions from the standard form. A wedding can look as much like the cultural ideal as one chooses – or it can be a different animal entirely. And I think this possibility of variation is something that is becoming increasingly common and, maybe even more importantly, increasingly accepted. When writing about how marriage changed things, Patchett writes that marrying Karl freed up so much time. They no longer had to discuss why they weren’t married – with each other or anyone else. My sense is that – for them – their reasons for eventually marrying were solid and, in some ways, were reasons that they needed not share. The public declaration a wedding affords was not essential. That’s fine, and I’m sure there are plenty of other couples who feel the same way. But for others, how wonderful that there is the wedding to allow them the chance to tell the people they love most just why they’ve decided to wed and what they think their lives will be like. And how sad to think that an understanding of the wedding as rigid and constrictive might cause some people to forego that opportunity altogether.

Sometimes We Watch TV and Scream

And it’s not even always because we’re watching The Walking Dead.

 the-walking-dead-flesh-eating-zombies-season2-2011

Last night, my husband called me into the TV room and deliberately rewound so I could watch this:

http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7fld/davids-bridal-the-invisible-man

davids-bridal-the-invisible-man-small-1

Why must he taunt me?

I get that there is this cultural thing going on in contemporary America that privileges wedding dresses above all other wedding accoutrement (I guess some people would argue that the ring is NUMBER ONE, but my money is still on the dress). I get that there is this on-going view of the wedding as “the bride’s day.” I see these trends. I accept that they exist. I hate them. And so: I use this blog to express my frustration with this advertisement (titled, “The Invisible Man” – gag) and its willful perpetuation of ideas I despise.

First: Grooms need not be “mere cog(s) in the wheel of…carefully choreographed wedding extravaganza(s).” The groom is future partner to the person he’s about to wed. As such, he should (and many grooms do) share responsibility in the careful choreographing of said extravaganza. Or he should feel free to say,“Hey, I’m not into the idea of our wedding as a ‘carefully choreographed’ anything, extravaganza or otherwise.”And if he’s about to marry the right person, that person will say “I get it. What kind of celebration can we plan that will make us both happy?”

Second: Sometimes grooms marry grooms. And then – uh-oh. There’s no bride for the wedding to be all about. And there’s no dress to take up the absent bride’s attention. SIDENOTE: Trust me: I get that same-sex partners can embrace non-normative gender titles and appearance – but for the sake of argument, let’s say no bride, no dress. What then? The wedding doesn’t matter? Chyrs Ingraham critiqued the wedding-industrial complex years ago, and paid particular attention to the heterosexist element of American wedding culture. To some degree, with the growing legalization of same-sex unions, the heterosexism of traditional wedding expectations is more apparent than ever. And from my point of view, it makes the wedding industry’s attempt to grasp at tired wedding absolutes look terribly old-fashioned and out of date (ahem, David’s Bridal).

Third: Brides are not an absolute lump category. Just like we in the history biz can’t say “American women” and feel fine that we’ve covered our bases talking about what ALL WOMEN thought, how they acted, or what they valued, we can’t say “brides” and feel like we’ve got a catch-all terms on our hands. Newsflash wedding industry: women/brides have different goals and intentions as they prepare for their weddings and their marriages. Because weddings have been my point of research – and to some degree, my professional bread and butter – I’ve tried not to digress to the personal in these posts. But here and now I share this: I bought a wedding dress from J. Crew that a) was among the cheapest they had available; b) I could get at 30% (I think) off because I would’ve spent above $100; c) they would ship to my house and I would never have to go into a wedding gown store; d) I thought would be fine. What I wanted: something much more vintage-y that fell just below the knees, had tea-length sleeves, and was not white. Is that what I got? No way. Why? Because I didn’t value getting the dress I had in my mind’s eye enough to spend the time and resources looking for it. What I did value: checking “get wedding dress” off my list. I report the following: Wedding dress ~ Good enough; Wedding day ~ Awesome; Marriage ~ Still going strong. For me, for others, it definitively was *not* “all about the dress.”

I get that David’s Bridal, which essentially is the Costco of bridal boutiques (it feels wrong to use “boutique” here, but I will), probably isn’t particularly interested in rocking the boat, re: mainstream views of contemporary American weddings. But I do think the company could tap into something more exciting and more relevant in the world of wedding culture. When brides and grooms of the 1960s and 1970s decided they would “do their own thing,” that they would personalize their celebrations to reflect who they were and what they thought, the Grand Dame of the wedding dress industry Priscilla Kidder – who had made her name and fortune with 1950s-era brides – started using language about how weddings and gowns could be unique and reflect the individual. And she sold more dresses. The traditional market was still there – but the new market responded to her savvy tactics. My sense is that the many businesses that comprise the contemporary wedding industry would do well to take stock of evolutions in wedding populations and styles of celebration and shape their messages to fit the modern age. My guess is that even the “traditional” celebrants would see the appeal.

Thoughts on Gisele, Nursing, and the Mommy Wars; Or, Why _Our Bodies, Ourselves_ is worth revisiting

Potentially the most horrifying scene ever put to screen by acclaimed series Mad Men is the one in which Betty Draper delivers baby Gene. The overall mood of the third child’s arrival – the child unplanned and, to some degree, unwanted – is cold and antiseptic. But the child’s conception may have had no bearing on that. Such was the nature of even a welcome childbirth in mid-1960s America. The message communicated in the episode is that Betty Draper went into and came out of that delivery room alone. What transpired within, even she may not be sure of. A baby came out of it, and that’s all the viewers, her husband, and even Betty herself need to know. When I think of gynecological care of the 1960s, this episode sums it all up. Doctors who were put on a pedestal for being doctors, women who were encouraged to trust in their MD’s medical knowledge (aka ask no questions), and a clinical and somewhat frighteningly dispassionate view of the body and its many possibilities.

In contrast, when I had my annual exams at Indiana University’s Health Center in the mid-2000s, something that struck me immediately was that all the rooms in the women’s wing had posters on their ceilings. When women went in for whatever ailed them, as they lay back, they viewed pictures of fields of wildflowers or beaches at sunset. The atmosphere was warm, and the message communicated by those posters was that women shouldn’t be tense or nervous. They should focus on something beautiful and think about their visit in a positive way.

Something had shifted.

For a time, and not unrelated to my experiences at the Health Center, I considered that my next project would be about women’s health. In particular, I was (and still am) interested in the efforts of the Boston feminists who put together Our Bodies, Ourselves as a pamphlet in 1971 (originally published as Women and Their Bodies in 1970: http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/uploads/pdf/OBOS1970.pdf). Women wrote for women in a manner that was matter of fact and, for the time (for now?), radical in its assertion that women should take ownership over their bodies and their health. What’s great about the original document is that it not only encourages women’s agency but it dismantles widespread social prescriptions about birth control, sexuality, pregnancy, and childbirth. Challenging limited viewpoints that suggest all women are predestined to be mothers, or ascribes “true womanhood” only to those who’ve born and raised a child, the book embraces a variety of feminities, any of which are considered legitimate and proof-enough of “real” womanhood. As a whole, the book was non-judgmental and remarkably kind.

OBO

But it’s not pregnancy or childbirth that has had me thinking about these evolutionary views of women’s health (whereas I usually digress somewhere midway through these things, here I started with a digression. Sorry.). Rather, it was Gisele Bundchen’s recent Instagram of herself breast-feeding baby Vivian. If you’ve been living under a rock (aka haven’t seen it), use the power of the Google, choose the appropriate search terms, and it will come to you.

As I suppose GB intended, people responded to this image (All press is good press, yes?). There were those who eye-rolled, maybe more at Gisele’s caption (“What would I do without this beauty squad after the 15 hours flying and only 3 hours of sleep #multitasking #gettingready”) than the image itself. There were those who cheered GB for “normalizing” nursing (I personally think those people are looking for the term “glamourizing” but whatever). Salon’s Mary Elizabeth Williams (of whom I’m a great fan) defended Gisele as a working mother, finding a balance, like so many other working mothers of the world.

It’s worth nothing that this wasn’t GB’s first jump into the nursing fire. She’d caught greater heat back in 2010 for a Harper’s Bazaar UK interview in which she stated, “Some people here (in the US) think they don’t have to breastfeed, and I think ‘Are you going to give chemical food to your child when they are so little?’ I think there should be a worldwide law, in my opinion, that mothers should breastfeed their babies for six months.” In the ensuing backlash, she clarified her intentions, claiming that her comment had “nothing to do with the law.” Except, and maybe I’m being nitpicky here, she used the phrase “worldwide law.” Anyway. Her statement went on: “I understand that everyone has their own experience and opinions and I am not here to judge. I believe that bringing a life into this world is the single most important thing a person can undertake, and it can also be the most challenging.”  Well, except that the original words were entirely judgmental. And Gisele added to that judgment by suggesting those who opt out of child bearing – or are unable to do so – are living lives of less importance than those who bear children. So…I guess you could say I have my doubts about this “apology.”

As I’ve thought about GB’s picture and her words over the last several weeks – both of which are part of an image she consciously crafts – I’ve come back time and again to the openness, acceptance, and lack of judgment communicated in the original Our Bodies, Ourselves and how those qualities seem so absent in GB’s words and actions. With her picture (and I keep thinking about its caption) and her words, she seems totally unaware of the insularity of her experience, and in many ways, fails to recognize the privileged position she occupies. She notes that every woman has her own experience, but the comment seems a throwaway, a bone tossed to people pissed that she’d overstepped. On the other hand, Our Bodies, Ourselves went out of its way to assure women that their many varied experiences were totally normal and totally valid. In this contemporary world of Mommy Wars – of which I’ve long read and am now quickly learning first-hand (and of which I’d count GB’s words) – a return to the OBO view of women’s life and health would be most welcome.

Which is to say: all of this has had me thinking historically (as the historian is wont to do), and on a variety of levels. Typically, when I’m writing, I like to sum up my thoughts with some larger conclusion about then, now, people, relationships, etc., etc., etc. It feels nice and tidy. But with this, I’m somewhat stymied. Do I think something has gone awry from the time of the budding optimism of the women’s movement, of which Our Bodies, Ourselves is a product? Yes, I think something has. Pretty clearly, and there’s been good discussion of this by contemporary feminists, one of the things that went awry was the movement away from “we” and the failure to really take institutions to task (the original OBO pamphlet calls for maternity and paternity leave – in 1970!!) and the movement toward an expectation that individuals put up or shut up. And Gisele pretty clearly puts up. From there, she can operate on a kind of “if I can do it, so can you” mindset. But I don’t think the problem is something about women in isolation. I keep thinking about the culture of celebrity that’s grown since the 1970s – and maybe more specifically the style of celebrity that’s really blossomed since the 1990s, where the lethal combination of reality TV, the internet, and social media has given celebrities the option of opining at will and to audiences of enormous size and scope. And with little thought to how their actions or views might be interpreted by others or what their actions or views actually communicate. There are things I’m still working through when I think of this. Among those things, however, of this I am certain: this “throwaway” world of popular culture is chock full of possibility for the observant and constantly reveals the evolution of our views on a host of issues.

What we in the biz call a “teachable moment”…

I realize I’m late to comment on the controversy surrounding Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson. The holidays interrupted attempts at a normal work schedule, but they also provided some time to stew – which isn’t the worst thing in the world.

Obviously, given what I’ve written before, I disagree entirely with Robertson’s views on homosexuality. But if we’re talking about a member of the contemporary conservative Christian community, such views don’t particularly surprise me. And there’s been plenty written by those who support and those who disagree with Robertson’s statements, with A&E’s response (the immediate as well as the subsequent), etc., etc., etc.

robertson

There’s also been some written about his views on race, which for me, was the more troubling element of his interview. Born eight years before the Brown v. Board of Education ruling – and thus in plenty of time to see the origins and activism of the modern Civil Rights Movement not to mention the circumstances that led to its development – Robertson clearly relies on a mythic past of racial harmony when he states “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!” He adds, “Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

I won’t suggest that Robertson misremembers the past. Very likely, this is just how he imagined the world then and has continued to think about the past ever since. More accurately, I believe his view is representative of those who fail to imagine the world beyond their own experiences, of those who fail to look at the larger context of the lives of those who are unlike them. This is not merely a southern phenomenon – nor is it one whose application is problematic only when we discuss race. But sticking with the racial theme: On a trip to New Jersey years ago, a relative told a story of her girlhood at the local shore town Catholic school, where she recalled there had been one black student. My relative assured me she would sit next to this student on the bus, that other children were kind to her, and, in sum, “She never felt any different.” Really? In 1940s New Jersey, as the only black child among all the fair-skinned Irish Catholics, she felt no difference? And among all those fair-skinned Catholics, both children and adults, not one recognized her as different and made that recognition known? As a historian – and as a human being – I find that difficult to believe. What’s at stake here? Why shape the story in this way? My guesses: so that my relative can absolve herself of any guilt, re: American race relations, so that the idea of a clear North/South divide remains in tact, so that the “good old days” retain their status as “good.”

On this site, I most often write about love and marriage and weddings (and the cultures that accompany them) of the recent past and in contemporary America. But I’m also interested in the intimate relationships people share more broadly, in the ways the experience and imagine both their public and private lives and those with whom they interact. As an educator, I’m interested in pushing my students toward considering various perspectives in and of the past. In Robertson’s youth, he may have been among the poor whites, but he was white. The likelihood that any person of color would express dissatisfaction with the standing racial etiquette of the Jim Crow South with even a person recognized as “white trash” is highly unlikely. In 1955, when television reporters travelled to Mississippi to cover the trial of Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, men accused (and guilty) of killing Chicago teenager Emmett Till, they interviewed African American passerby about their views on the case. Many of those interviewed claimed they had no opinion about the trial. No opinion about a 14 year old black boy, beaten, shot, and tied to a cotton gin then dumped in the Tallahatchie River for allegedly whistling at a white woman? If we take those historical sources at face value, we fail as historians. Considering the larger context of the southern experience reveals the necessity of shrouded views as a mechanism of self-preservation and basic survival.

As we consider relationships and lives of historical actors, it’s fundamental that we remember to consider the broader world in which our actors lived – and how a relationship between two people very likely would yield two stories as to the nature of that relationship and each person’s overall experiences. And as we engage in relationships in our own lives, it’s fundamental, I would argue, to consider the larger world in which our relationships, particularly our relationships with people different from ourselves, exist. If I might, this is where I’d make a plug not only for history but for the world of the humanities and liberal arts – where we emphasize perspective and analysis and investigation of other people, languages, cultures, and ways of life. My students, knowing as they do about the conscious creation of a Jim Crow system of “justice,” the development of the Double Victory campaign in the wake of the Second World War, the formation of a community effort to undo Montgomery’s separate but clearly unequal system of transportation, know that a dismissive claim that “they” were happy and seemingly unconcerned with the extension of a second-class brand of citizenship fails to accurately relay the complicated experience of southern life. Ideally, their education will prepare them to interrogate other such claims of and about the past, particularly as they consider the sources making them and what contemporary purposes such claims might serve.

busboycott

Community activists during the Montgomery Bus Boycott

Shame on you, Lance Bass

In the world of things I don’t love, at the top of the list are the assumptions people make about sex and gender, the expectations they have of how men and women should behave because they are men and women. Clearly, then, weddings provide a fruitful ground for frustration. I suppose, by now, I should’ve learned to temper my expectations and assumptions about who will play up what tired clichés and how. And yet, I have not. For this week’s disappointment, I present to you one Lance Bass.

BassThe culprit: Lance Bass

Bass, in the midst of arranging his wedding to partner Michael Turchin, has offered up some half-baked wisdom from the world of wedding planning. After noting that he almost feels bad that there’s not a woman around to make decisions, he noted “The sad thing about two guys planning a wedding is it’s really hard – the wedding’s usually for the bride, and they’ve been dreaming of it since they were two years old.” For someone who should be happy he’s gay wedding planning in the twenty-first century when unions such as his own are not only legal but also celebrated, Bass is dishing up some pretty archaic ideas. Operating in a weird world of gender dichotomy – where “man” equals one set of behaviors and values and “woman” an opposing set – Bass seems oblivious to the fact that many people would look to him and his non-traditional romantic partnership and assume that he and Turchin must embody an alternative kind of masculinity (especially, one might imagine, when Bass suggests the two men may take as long as a year to plan their wedding. Why a year if they’re not really that into it?). Or, it’s entirely possible, given prevailing stereotypes, that many would look to a gay male duo and presume the two men to be effeminate in behavior and outlook. These kind of presumptions, of course, are ridiculous and have been proved inaccurate time after time after time.  As I’ve written here and elsewhere, the problem with these assumptions is that they limit people from understanding that any range of behaviors can be considered normal and natural, that neither men nor women need to be confined to a rigid set of rules and regulations. Many women, we know, have had plenty of other dreams – weddings aside – to keep them busy “since they were two years old.” And plenty of men – gay and straight – have taken active roles in planning for their impending nuptials. All of this is true in spite of the fact that the larger culture keeps hammering home the concept of the wedding as “the bride’s day.” It can be, but it doesn’t have to be.

And Bass and Turchin are a case in point. When Bass notes that since there’s no wedding dress to serve as star of the celebration, he and his groom will encourage female guests to don high fashion and couture, he both affirms and contradicts himself. He stands by the idea that women should be adorned on the wedding day, that there should be a dress. But he also provides an example of two men thinking fairly deeply about how what their celebration should look like and how it should unfold.

 

“The sad thing about two guys planning a wedding is it’s really hard – the wedding’s usually for the bride, and they’ve been dreaming of it since they were two years old,” he continued.
Read more at http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/134244/The-Weddings-Usually-For-The-Bride-Lance-Bass-Admits-Its-Sad-Theres-No-Excited-Bride-In-His-Gay-Wedding#84MW2GvLCQMGiuxY.99
“The sad thing about two guys planning a wedding is it’s really hard – the wedding’s usually for the bride, and they’ve been dreaming of it since they were two years old,” he continued.
Read more at http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/134244/The-Weddings-Usually-For-The-Bride-Lance-Bass-Admits-Its-Sad-Theres-No-Excited-Bride-In-His-Gay-Wedding#84MW2GvLCQMGiuxY.99
“The sad thing about two guys planning a wedding is it’s really hard – the wedding’s usually for the bride, and they’ve been dreaming of it since they were two years old,” he continued.
Read more at http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/134244/The-Weddings-Usually-For-The-Bride-Lance-Bass-Admits-Its-Sad-Theres-No-Excited-Bride-In-His-Gay-Wedding#84MW2GvLCQMGiuxY.99

“Don’t ever take sides with anyone against the family.”

I’m late to post on the Cheney v. Cheney feud, re: marriage equality, but I want to bring attention to what I think is a fantastic article on the sisters’ personal battle made public: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/opinion/navarrette-cheney-family-split/.

Huzzah for Mary Cheney and Heather Poe, both of whom are taking Liz Cheney to task for her limited views of civic equality, especially in the face of alleged joy she expressed at their union. And good on Ruben Navarrette Jr. for recounting his own evolution, re: marriage equality. While support for full rights of citizenship may start with a personal relationship, ideally, citizens expand their viewpoints to reach beyond the individual. The achievement of marriage equality is about the broader sense of what the nation should stand for and who should be included among its citizenry as full and equal members of the body politic.

A West Point Wedding – not “just like every other wedding”

I read numerous headlines this week marking the wedding of two West Point graduates at the Military Academy’s famed Gothic Cadet Chapel. Fantastic. Dancing on the graves of DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell at the same time. Two birds with one stone. (p.s. And good for the lesbian couples who wed at the Point last year.) But something in the coverage gave me pause. I had to stop and scratch my head when I read groom Larry Choate’s statement about the wedding: “It’s going to be just like every other wedding there, except probably a lot smaller and no bride.” I don’t think so, Larry.

Years ago, when I wrote about the role weddings played in black Americans’ sense of citizenship and national belonging (“Ceremony and Citizenship: African-American Weddings, 1945-1960,” Gender and History 21 [August 2009], 402-24.), I emphasized West Point weddings as particularly symbolic. Hosting a wedding at potentially the most elite educational institution in the United States, thereby demonstrating belonging as part of its esteemed community, clearly marks a couple as celebrated members of the larger body politic. The upwardly mobile and striving black middle class celebrated these weddings as they read about them in issues of Jet and Ebony (Jet, June 18, 1953; Jet, June 23, 1955; Ebony, September 1953). Coverage in these periodicals – both of which strove to highlight black Americans’ inclusion in the postwar American way of life – suggested that these weddings were notable and worthy of public accolade. The celebrations indicated mainstream acceptance of black achievement and respectability and suggested a move toward greater racial equality.

To suggest that a wedding of two men at West Point is “just like every other wedding there” ignores the fact that a gay wedding on the Military Academy’s campus very clearly marks a sea change in both institutional and public perceptions of same-sex love and marriage equality. My sense is that two men who attended West Point and are now attending and employed by Harvard Business School are two men who maybe don’t love the idea of rocking the boat. I suspect they’re happy to celebrate their relationship’s similarity to mainstream notions of coupledom rather than calling attention to their obvious difference. But here’s the thing about gay weddings – still, I argue, even with the marriage equality advances taking place: when there’s no bride or no groom, the wedding EMPHATICALLY is not like “every other wedding” regardless of where it’s held. The absence of one of these formerly major players changes the game and makes the wedding explicitly political, not to mention pretty clearly different from what most people expect. And to be honest, this change, with its openness and acceptance and the tremendous difference it signifies in public views and public policy from only a few short years ago, is well worth celebrating.

cos-01-west-point-wedding-de

Larry Choate III and Daniel Lennox