I’ve been a wedding coordinator for almost a decade, and in that time I’ve attended hundreds of weddings. When I started this job, I assumed I’d wind up with lots of “wedding disaster” anecdotes. You know the stuff I mean: people saying “I don’t” at the alter, memorably hideous bridesmaids gowns, and all the other staples of TV sit-com nuptials. Happily, in real life nearly every wedding I’ve been at has been happy and gone off well. Even the near-disasters – such as the one where the bride’s gown wasn’t delivered – often turn out beautifully in the end.
A column I read in Newsday this week has reminded me of the exception – the worse, most miserable wedding I’ve ever attended. This was eight years ago, not long after I had begun as a wedding coordinator. The groom was African-American. The bride was white. And the families were absent.
From what the few guests (the bride and groom had expected 150; about 30 attended) present were saying, neither family had approved of the wedding, primarily because of the race difference. I don’t know how usual or unusual such family disapproval is; I can say, having since attended a couple dozen mixed-race weddings, that it is very unusual for both families to express their disapproval by boycotting the wedding.
When it became clear what had happened, the bride retreated into her dressing room and cried. The groom literally staggered, looking alternatively shellshocked and heartbroken. They pulled themselves out of their funk and got married; put on brave faces and danced at the reception afterwards (empty chairs, guests with strained grins, mounds of food that would end up being thrown away).
“God Squad” writers Rabbi Marc Gellman and Msgr. Thomas Hartman would have approved of what happened at that wedding, eight years ago.
Oh, probably they wouldn’t have approved of the racial politics. But, like the families of that unfortunate couple, they view weddings as a platform for relatives to express disapproval of the marriage. Thus, they advise a loving grandmother to boycott her granddaughter’s commitment ceremony, because her granddaughter is a lesbian.
But why would anyone choose to do this on a wedding (or commitment ceremony) day? After all, a wedding is not a unique opportunity to express misgivings or disapproval; there are 364 other days of the year available to say that (with, say, a difficult-but-loving chat over dinner, or a heartfelt letter).
So what is special about the wedding day? Well, a wedding is a unique opportunity for a loved one to express disapproval in a way that is especially cruel; and a once-in-a-lifetime chance to strike on what is for many brides and grooms the single most emotionally vulnerable day of their lives.
Of course, not all wedding couples are the same. Some deal with the most terrible wedding crisis with aplomb. (At the wedding where the bride’s dress never arrived, the groom paced up and down telling anyone with ears that he didn’t care, he’d marry his bride even if she was wearing blue jeans and a halter top. When I relayed that to the bride – who had been hiding in her dressing room – she brightened up. She walked up the aisle in a red ball gown she had bought for a different occasion, and I’ve gotta tell you, she looked stunning).
But as I know (and as The God Squad, who have probably attended even more weddings than I have, know) not every wedding couple is like that. I’ve seen grooms tremble and turn white because of a missing collar stud. I’ve seen brides weep because of a wedding cake of the wrong flavor. And I’ve also seen brides weep because their grandmother didn’t come to their special day.
Why would anyone wish that, under any circumstances?
Not on that day. There may be a need, as Rabbi Gellman and Msgr Hartman say, for expressing disapproval; but there’s no need to be cruel about it.
Not on that day. Attending a wedding doesn’t have to be a political statement. I’m sure that the granddaughter is already fully aware of her grandmother’s disapproval (the grandmother refuses to even sleep in her granddaughter’s house). By attending the wedding, the grandmother could have let her granddaughter know that despite her disapproval, she still intended to be in her granddaughter’s life when her granddaughter needed her. Instead, the God Squad has advised her to send a message that when the chips are down, the grandmother considers her need to make a political statement more important than her love for her granddaughter.
Again: She could have expressed her disapproval of her granddaughter’s lifestyle anytime. The only advantage of doing so by boycotting the commitment ceremony, rather than in any of a thousand other ways, is because no other way will inflict as much pain on her granddaughter. I’m appalled that this is the route the God Squad endorses.
I’d also ask the God Squad to examine their own hearts. Suppose that this had been a heterosexual wedding that the grandmother didn’t approve of because her granddaughter’s fiance was (say) an employee of Playboy, or intended to be a househusband while the granddaughter worked, or something like that. In that case, would they have endorsed a boycott of the wedding – or would they have suggested attending the wedding and finding some more loving place and time to express disapproval?
* * *
P.S. The God Squad also writes that they “hope that the gay community can understand that… the choices they’ve made in their lives are a fair field for criticism.” Fair enough. But they then hypocritically say that “those who reject [same-sex] unions must not have to bear the unjust slander of being called ‘homophobes.'” It seems to me that what’s sauce for the goose, is also sauce for the gander. I don’t know if they, personally, are homophobes – but the homophobia that clearly underlies much of the anti-gay-marriage movement is, contrary to what the God Squad thinks, fair game for criticism. (Or do they suggest that in the entire anti-gay-marriage movement, there is not a single person, anywhere, motivated by homophobia?).
I was surprised at how well-written their “advice” was. I guess I expected something more…typically homophobic. Nevertheless, I am appalled by their conclusions. Oddly, I find this to be one of the best arguments against gay marriage that I have ever read, even if I disagree with every condemning word.
Excellent post, Amp.
Yes, beautifully done, Amp.
hmmm,
Are you saying one is obliged to go to a wedding of a close family memeber regardless of, well anything short of hospitalization or death?
Regardless of why a person chooses to go or not go, it is a personal choice; as would be the choice of the choice to terminate a relationship with those who didn’t come if one objects to the reasons for their absence.
It seems to me this is a matter of personal choice on all ends. Because you or I may disagree with that choice, whatever it may be, doesn’t take away the freedom of the person(s) making that choice.
Are you saying one is obliged to go to a wedding of a close family memeber regardless of, well anything short of hospitalization or death?
Of course not. There are hurtful and non-hurtful reasons not to go to a wedding. For instance, I wasn’t at my cousin Rachel’s wedding because I simply couldn’t afford the airfare. I doubt my great-uncle Ben attended, either, because he’s quite elderly and doesn’t travel easily nowadays.
However, boycotting a wedding because you want to “send a message” is, in my view, a uniquely hurtful thing to do. Sane people who might not be hurt by ordinary non-attendance, might be hurt in this instance, and rightly so.
In other words, there’s a difference between simple non-attendance and a boycott.
It seems to me this is a matter of personal choice on all ends. Because you or I may disagree with that choice, whatever it may be, doesn’t take away the freedom of the person(s) making that choice.
Well, of course. I wasn’t suggesting that Grandma should be forced to attend the ceremony at gunpoint.
However, I think people should be aware of the consequences of their personal choices. We don’t live in an empty world; what we do will effect the people around us.
Just because she’s free to make choices, doesn’t mean that she has any right to freedom from criticism for those choices. Neither her nor her granddaughter has that right.
I’m saying it’s selfish and cruel to think of a wedding day as an opportunity to “make a statement,” when there are so many less heartless ways available. I am not, however, denying that people are individually free to choose selfishness and cruelty.
I agree with you about there being consequences to one’s actions, and a willingness to accept those consequences, and that might mean grandma doesn’t see granddaughter again, at least not without a lot of bowing and scraping and pleading for forgiveness…
I think these things are hurtful only if you let them hurt you. I mean, your cousin Rachel could have sat down and gone over all the things you did spend your money on and decide that she was less valuable to you than whatever, or she could have missed you and danced at her wedding.
this kind of but doesn’t really connect with something I posted on Respectful of Otters.
There are people who feel I’m going to hell because I don’t believe in jesus. Big myth in my mind. I can be friends with these people as long as their beliefs stay with them (ie, they aren’t setting me up to be killed, trying to indoctirnate my kids etc. etc. etc. There was a great piece on the anti-semitic German who saved a Jewish family from the Nazi, and his piece is tops but I can’t find it to link.)
If G-d, the one I believe in is a big myth in your mind, what should I do? Pout?
She doesn’t come because this makes a statement…okay. Make a statement back or not as you choose; that is a consequence of her action.
I don’t think it so selfish and cruel really.
I can see where you would howerver; just a question though. Is there any time you could think of where you would boycott someone’s wedding?
Rachel Ann,
If a family member or friend was marrying someone who physically abused them, I might consider boycotting the wedding. That’s pretty much the only reason I can think of. I might not so as to show that I still care about that family member, and so as not to help their abuser in cutting them off from their loved ones, but I would have to think very hard about which was more important: demonstrating my level of intolerance towards a person who treated them so badly, or making sure I knew they knew I would always be there for them. Tough call.
Is there any time you could think of where you would boycott someone’s wedding?
Hmmn. Only if I were going to boycott them out of my life entirely – if they had done something so awful that I wasn’t going to talk to them, period, ever. I’m having a hard time thinking of an example offhand, though. For one thing, especially when it comes to personal relationships, I think everyone should be considered to be “more than their worse moments.”
Although I’m sympathetic to ADS’s example, in that case I’d attend the wedding to show that I still considered myself part of the abuse victim’s life. Better to leave a door open, in that case…
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040531&s=scagliotti
It’s not at all the same thing, but this guy didn’t strike me as a great catch as a friend either.
After writing an entry about this (sorry for the triple trackback, strange bug), I’ve given it some more thought.
Would I attend a wedding where an animal sacrifice was performed (not that I know of any where such is done)? or a wedding of a brother who just joined a mind-controlling cult? Where would I draw the line?
I think the line would be pretty hard to reach given the range of possible reasons I might encounter. If I turned it around, we’ve attended services with which we have strong disagreement or sometimes even somewhat offended (baptisms, wedding, missionary farewells, etc, etc. But they were services or ceremonies that our family members held dear, and even though we strongly object to some of them, we attend to show our love and support of the individual, not the ceremony.
I have yet to picture in my mind what ceremony a family member would invite us that they held sacred or dear that we would _not_ attend in protest. It’d have to be quite drastically bad.
My first thought was that I might “boycott” a wedding if I thought the marriage was a Really Bad Idea for my friend (such as in the case of abuse), but I’m persuaded by Ampersand’s point that it’s important to keep connected to friends — especially when they’re going into a bad situation. Where I would probably draw the line is if my friend had decided to enter into the marriage for fraudulent purposes (like getting someone’s money). Bad judgment is one thing, but deceit is another.
You’re a wedding coordinator? That’s cool. Have you kept up with the couple who expected 150 people but only had 30 guests? How are they doing? That’s a gruesome story. (Did the non-attending family members SAY they were coming, and then not show up?)
I think finding an excuse to stay home is an acceptable thing for Grandma to do, if she communicates it nicely and with regret.
What is shocking about the first example of the black/white family boycott is that the family members had obviously RSVP’ed and then didn’t show. That’s beyond rude — it’s cruel and unforgivable.
Sending a message of disapproval is similarly wrong and hurtful, but in all honesty, if grandma really believes that this is morally depraved it’s probably better for all concerned that she stay away, provided she does it in a nice way.
i come from a quaker tradition in which boycotting, and sometimes other forms of noncooperation, are the approved methods of indicating dissent.
if fred phelps wants to boycott my next wedding, cool. would you rather have disrupters present, making a scene? of course fred is more than welcome just for the entertainment value. i knew one wedding with klingon ushers in case fred showed up.
never throw away food. just have a second reception at the local homeless shelter or old folks home.
the most recent wedding i was at was just me, the groom (a buddy from the gay bar i hang out at), the bride, her father, the justice of the peace.
most weddings i’ve been to involve animal sacrifice (‘holocaust’, burnt offerings.) i often decline to attend social events where there’s no vegetarian option on the menu (or termites, said the aardvark.)
Emily:
I should be a bit more specific about my job: I work at a historic church building. As part of my job, I’m a “wedding coordinator” for folks who get married in our church. I help the bride and groom plan the processional, I direct the rehearsal, and during the wedding itself I’m the person hiding in the back whispering “your turn – walk out now!” to people. But I’m not a full-fledged wedding coordinator, because that’s all I do – I’m not there to help with the invitation or pick out the flowers or all that stuff.
Anyhow, the groom (who was the one I spoke to the most) certainly believed that people had said they’d be there. What exactly that means, I can’t say, but I assume that at least some of them RSVP’d.
Unfortunately, I haven’t kept in touch with them (as a general policy, I don’t do that – I just meet too many newlyweds each year!). I’ve often wondered if they made it, though. I hope so.
And it certainly is a gruesome story – the very worse story I have, after attending I-don’t-know-how-many-hundreds of weddings.
* * *
A.Avark, I don’t imagine that Fred Phelps would be an invited guest, so the kind of thing I’m talking about wouldn’t apply to him.
Curiously enough, his group, “God Hates Fags,” did picket my workplace once. It was really funny. (Fortunately, they didn’t come by during a wedding.)
Well, Amp, this is all a tough question. If I really couldn’t wish a couple well – a case of abuse or a mind control cult or something like that – I would probably decline to attend. But I would come up with a flimsy excuse, as a veneer of politeness. That wouldn’t be a boycott, which is a declaration of one’s disapproval and a call for others to join in. That I wouldn’t do for any wedding, for the reasons you describe: it’s too uniquely cruel.
But for anyone who knew my real reasons for declining to attend, my judgment would be fair game for criticism. And that is why I will be tougher than you were and say this: that anyone who declines to attend a loved one’s homosexual wedding or commitment ceremony BECAUSE it’s homosexual – that person IS a homophobe. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. They don’t have to be raving about it. Racists don’t all rave either.
Turning to something lighter, I attended a wedding at which something worse than the bride’s dress didn’t show up:
The minister didn’t show up. (I never found out why.)
The couple married themselves. I recently attended their 25th anniversary dinner, so it all came out very well.
I don’t understand boycotting a wedding if one ever plans to speak to the marrieds-to-be ever again. Cutting them out of one’s life ahead of time, if you feel it necessary, all right–then you’re not boycotting a wedding, you’re severing the relationship.
mythago,
You are boycotting a wedding (it shouldn’t be done with malice. Just refuse to go.If asked you can state one’s reasons, but in general it should come with no more than a “sorry I won’t be able to come” in that little space provided. Saying one will come when the intention is to NOT come is just plain nasty.)
Terminating the relationship is dependent on one’s own intentions and the couple’s response. That is one possible consequence of the action, but not the only one.
And there are a lot of weddings I can see boycotting; I can easily see not going if one of the couple were a convicted child molestor, unless I had info to support the idea that the conviction was false. (yes this is entirely different from same sex coupling..I’m not drawing a value comparison) For that matter, if one of the party were into various, repugnant to me, philosophies, I would avoid going as well.
I would not, most likely, make a big deal of it. Just wouldn’t attend. If the person knew me and my dh well enough to invite us, then presumably they would know well enough why we didn’t come.
And yes there would be the chance that I would lose that relationship; on the other hand, as occured with a friend –whose father didn’t speak to her for many years because she lived with other’s in an unmarried state– she felt angry towards him, but she respected him more than she respected her mother who did continue a relationship with her.
Thanks again for a great post, Amp. You can always be counted on to take the side of compassion and talk about it in a very dignified way.
I’ve never been in a situation where I considered boycotting a wedding, but I was very pointedly not invited to my younger sister’s wedding because my family doesn’t approve of my exodus of their church some years ago. Now of course, they had the right to invite or not anyone they chose to. But the ability to hurt family members through a wedding can cut both ways. If I should get married in the future, and I’d like to at some point, I’m still torn about whether or not to invite them.
btw – When I try to click on permalinks, the url resolves to the main site url, even though it shows the individual post in the browser. I have to right click on the permalink and pull it off properties.
BTW I’m not trying to be a PIA here; I am trying to get to a point, though perhaps in the wrong way; all of us have a particular value system. Those of us who hold to the Bible or the Torah, or the Koran have an easier time explaining and delienating what their value system is: our outlook is based on our belief in G-d. Similarly, those who are conservative but not religious, can also simply state that this is the particular moral code they follow.
But liberals have it tougher; the code is not so distinct (I think) because it does incorporate various idealogies; which is the superior system of beliefs? This is, I think, one of the difficulties that liberals have in getting their message across. Most people like a bit of black and white–shades of grey are more difficult to assess and appreciate.
I would hope most people would boycott a wedding where the bride and or groom donned swastikas/white robes and similar hate attirement.I think it pretty sad that anyone would boycott a wedding because of the color of the person’s skin, or other physical appreances. There are a lot of things that lie in between, and it may annoy the hell out of a lot of people here, but in many cases I would ask my LOR–local Orthodox Rav, to see what he said.
But it isn’t a black and white issue (if and when to boycott a wedding), especially, I think, if you are a liberal.
It is never right to boycott a wedding in order to show disapproval, period. It’s rude. Period.
If, for whatever reason, you are not comfortable or cannot go, you RSVP with “Regrets”. That is not boycotting, because you are saying that you would like to be there, but cannot for whatever reason.
I’m not sure where the line comes between non-attendance and boycott, but I would consider it entirely reasonable to stay away if you didn’t think you could behave in a way that would make the couple happy. One example would be if your ex was marrying a friend and you were too racked with jealousy to wish them well. Another would be if you disapproved for whatever reason and didn’t want to participate in something you felt was wrong or immoral.
If it’s a choice between turning up and sitting with pursed lips making it clear that they think it’s wrong and making an excuse to stay away, I think I’d rather have the excuse.
Saying you’ll attend and then no-showing, on the other hand, is vile.
I know that I look like a “liberal” and walk like a “liberal” so I must be a “liberal,” although I’ve never truly considered myself such. That said, my code of conduct is quite distinct: do no harm. That’s not to say, of course, that I’ve never done harm, and will never do any in the future, but should I, I am well aware that there are and will be consequences to what I’ve done.
Would I boycott a wedding with swastikas and hooded white robes? I’ll never be faced with that decision. It’s purely hypothetical. But the choice of simply not going or not going to make a statement is a clear one. I can say with absolute certainty that should someone invite me to such a wedding, they would know with equal certainty that I do not approve of their chosen lifestyle. And therein lies another clear difference. A same sex marriage or commitment ceremony is not a union of two people who (presumably) fell in love, decided to marry and happen to have both chosen a way of life that I find morally wrong. It is the union of two people who have fallen in love and have chosen to marry. Period. That they are of the same gender is not in the least analagous to their other, “chosen” lifestyles — be those religious, sports-related, philosophical or any other.
Good lord. Bad enough if the family members said they didn’t approve and refused the invitation. It’s really horrible, spiteful, and childish that they said they’d go and then just didn’t show up. That’s beyond cruel.
Amp, I wonder if you could start a non-profit: Wedding Savers. For situations like this, you call your blogger buds, who rush over to throw confettii on the happy couple, eat some cake, shake our pinko butts to some fun music, get them the gifts they were registered for, and make impromtu speeches about how we’ll be so excited to attend their silver anniversary party.
And as for the general point–I agree. Some folks have a funny way of demonstrating family values in action. I don’t see how alienating and hurting someone one is supposed to love is going to do any good.
And just a quick comment about choices:
No one here is denying the right to “boycott” a wedding. What has been said is that boycotting a wedding as a punishment is cruel. Saying “we can choose how hurt we are by this” doesn’t wash. I’m not going to berate someone for being so careless as to be hurt that a parent, a sibling, or a close relative decided to punish them.
There is a huge difference between telling someone “I’m not going to be able to attend your wedding because the swatsikas make me very uncomfortable”, “I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to go to the wedding since you are marrying my ex boyfriend/girlfriend” and “I’ll show you, you filthy race traitor/homo/dyke/godless whore/whatever. I’ll punish you publically and condemn who you are and who you love.”
Recognizing that there are choices one can make, and that one has the right to make, does not mean that we should censor our criticism of those choices. Certainly, wedding boycotters have no problems letting their bile free. I think the criticism on this board is far more civil in comparison.
Let’s just declare my bias up front: Although I’m an Orthodox Jew, and have the attendant Biblical problem with homosexuality, I’m in favor of allowing same-sex marriages — Although I think both same-sex and different-sex marriages should not be called marriages, obviating the problem. There’s the civil, legal contract whereby two people are granted particular rights and obligations w/r/t each other, and there’s a religious thing called Marriage. Why religion’s involved in the first one and the government’s involved in that second one, I can’t figure out.
Having said all that, though, I think the comments here (and perhaps the original post) are coming at this from the wrong direction.
What everyone seems to be missing is the _positive_ _affirmation_ involved in attending a wedding. If I’m invited to a wedding, and show up, I’m effectively saying, “I support you in this decision, in this moment of your life.”
The default answer to a wedding invitation is “yes.” Not default as in, “I don’t have to answer,” but default as in expected: If it wasn’t expected that you’d at least *want* to come, you wouldn’t have been invited. So the presumption of the invitER is that barring practical obstacles, you support the decision and the people making the decision.
When you decline (with regrets?), if you say you can’t make it for innocuous reasons, you’re effectively communicating, again, the approval and support of the decision. Even if you aren’t there physically a “polite” refusal is tantamount to attending.
So all of this “save it for another day” stuff doesn’t work. If Person A doesn’t approve, doesn’t support, doesn’t agree, then all of a polite refusal fails to convey that message, and in fact *significantly* undercuts that message for the other 364 days. Not only does Person A have the _right_ not to attend, *and* to inform the inviting parties why he or she’s not attending, it’s practically an obligation, since anything less than actually expressing disapproval will be construed as approval.
Now, there’s a whole side question as to why Person A thinks they have the right to tell the bride and groom their (Person A’s) opinion. That’s a function of the relationship that exists before. But the invitation to the wedding, by dint of being an invitation to “come celebrate with us,” is also an invitation to “not-come and don’t-celebrate with us.”
Is it particularly cruel? Sometimes a child wants something which the parent feels is harmful, and is refused. Sometimes a child *really* wants something and is still refused. Sometimes it’s even the child’s birthday. The refusal is not particularly cruel, it’s consistent across the 365.25 days of the year. *If* it was _only_ on the kid’s birthday that the parent refused the request, then that would be cruel. If somehow on the birthday the child was suddenly allowed to hurt himself, that would also, in its own way, be cruel.
RSVP’ing yes with the intention not to show up is more extreme, as it causes financial loss, embarassment, and more emotional pain. But the real problem is that it’s inconsistent — it communicates first, “yes, even though we’ve had our differences on this issue, at the end of the day I support you,” and only later “No, fooled you!” So for that reason it tends to defeat the purpose of the boycott in the first place.
–FD
Amanda,
You wrote: “It is never right to boycott a wedding in order to show disapproval, period. It’s rude. Period.
If, for whatever reason, you are not comfortable or cannot go, you RSVP with “Regrets”. That is not boycotting, because you are saying that you would like to be there, but cannot for whatever reason.”
But that is exactly what the grandmother in this case did. What the families of the interracial couple did was disgusting. But Grandma in this case, was advised to say “no thank you I can’t come because I do not approve of this choice.” whether I would give the same answer, I don’t know. I admit that…but at least I got the impression that Ampresand was saying this was boycotting…
And please don’t misunderstand me; I was deliberately using hyperbole to emphasis that we all, presumably, have limits, and that under certain circumstances we would all boycott, in terms of not going because we disapprove, a wedding. The question is where we individually draw the line. Newswriter states the two aren’t analogous; I stated that also. However, given that they are not equal doesn’t mean that SOME people may see their choice to marry and live a homosexual lifestyle as being immoral. Not the same, different to a high degree, but still immoral.
That is a fact you can’t get around.
The grandmother in this case saw the lifestyle as immoral.
And the solution given to her was to boycott the wedding by not showing up. (not by saying she would then not coming)
So if it is immoral to not show up, is it always immoral? When is it and when is it not, and who gets to decide.
That there are consequences; there are always consequences to a decision, good and bad. Anyone not knowing that hasn’t reached the ripe old age of
However, Ampersand, and perhaps I’m misunderstanding him, feels it is immoral to not show up because of their sexual preference.
I guess here is the question I’m asking; what are the lines and who gets to decide.
Just answer that question; I really am not trying to be perverse, I’m trying to understand the position of anyone who wants to answer, and why one has chosen those lines.
A friend of mine was (until recently) engaged to a guy of whom I didn’t approve–and for pretty good reasons. But I would have gone to her wedding and wished her the best–even though she knew my feelings on the matter. I had told her my concerns. Still, I would have hoped that I would eventually be proven wrong, sucked it up, and gone to wish her–and by extension, them–well. There’s nothing like a great show of public disapproval/punishment to push someone in the very opposite direction of your views.
I thought several posters here made it clear that it isn’t immoral or cruel to send regrets because you can’t attend, don’t have the money, illness, etc. It’s cruel to not attend to punish someone.
Okay Sheelzebub,
I want to make certain I read you right; you feel it is okay not to come, but not to punish someone. So if you feel the marriage/committment is wrong, you should still come? Or should you say no thank you and if asked lie? Tell the truth? Does it then become punishment?
I agree nasty language is unwarranted; I don’t like either, and I certainly wouldn’t advocate using cruel speech.But is “I don’t believe in this” okay in your book?
FrumDad’s point that silence implies approval applies to a lot of areas of life, most of them a lot less significant than weddings. But I’m just as glad that my life is not surrounded by people who feel obliged to tell me every time I do something of which they do not approve, out of concern that I might think they did approve. A society run by the rule that you must speak up would be impossible.
Advice columnists are frequently faced with the question, “My daughter/friend/whatever is making a marriage I think is a total mistake. What do I do?” And the answer is always, “Keep your mouth shut about it. Wish them well if you possibly can. And if you can’t, withdraw silently. You won’t change their minds by chastising them; you’d only make the situation worse.”
There’s a huge difference between letting someone think something innocent by implication, and positively lying to them about it. If I disapproved so strongly of a wedding that I wouldn’t go, my residual good will (towards whomever I was close enough to that I was invited) would be enough to keep me silent. But if I were there beaming, I’d be lying.
For me, matters are unlikely to go that far. My position is, gays should marry gays and be happy. I do look for the positives. My best friend #1 married a woman I disliked, and the feeling was mutual. But I wished him well, and I attended the wedding. Over the years his wife and I have learned to get along. My best friend #2 is repelled by the whole notion of marriage. But he knew it was right for me and encouraged me in proposing to my girlfriend. He was at my wedding. So was the girlfriend he’d dumped when she started pressing him about marriage. So were best friend #1 and his wife & kids.
In fact the only oddity about my wedding invitations was the one we sent to a couple in the throes of divorce. The husband wrote back saying they’d be comfortable only if just one of them attended, and had decided it would be him. We accepted that as their decision. What she thought about this I never asked, but my wife & I have remained friendly with both separately over the years.
And the solution given to her was to boycott the wedding by not showing up.
There’s a difference between cutting somebody out of your life because you believe they are immoral and wrong, and making a big point of staying home from their wedding to show your disapproval.
After all, it’s a WEDDING, not a Pride Parade. The granddaughter is intending to live with her spouse. What’s Grandma going to do? Make nice now that her point has been made? Speak to granddaughter but never mention Mrs. Granddaughter?
Rachel Ann: I want to make certain I read you right; you feel it is okay not to come, but not to punish someone. So if you feel the marriage/committment is wrong, you should still come? Or should you say no thank you and if asked lie? Tell the truth? Does it then become punishment?
I’ll cut and paste what I had posted previously:
A friend of mine was (until recently) engaged to a guy of whom I didn’t approve–and for pretty good reasons. But I would have gone to her wedding and wished her the best–even though she knew my feelings on the matter. I had told her my concerns. Still, I would have hoped that I would eventually be proven wrong, sucked it up, and gone to wish her–and by extension, them–well. There’s nothing like a great show of public disapproval/punishment to push someone in the very opposite direction of your views.
I didn’t agree with or approve of the engagement. I thought it would be a complete disaster. I also told my friend of my concerns; there was no startling revelation about how I felt. However, if the engagement were still on and she invited me to the wedding, I would have gone to wish her well. If our other friends didn’t go, that would be their choice. Though I must say, I’d wonder how they could ever be counted on to act like friends when it would be obvious that they’d gloat and say “I told you so” if/when things went south.
My love for my friend is stronger than my hatred for her ex-fiance.
I take Amp’s position– boycotting a wedding in this instance is not a loving thing to do. A loving grandmother who doesn’t approve of her granddaughter’s lesbianism probably isn’t going to shock anyone with the revelation. But if she loves her granddaughter and wants to wish her well, she can still go to the ceremony and do exactly that. By not doing it, she’s destroying her relationship with her granddaughter (your friend’s story aside, I know plenty of people who no longer have relationships with or respect for punishing relatives), possibly her daughter/son (my parents wouldn’t take very kindly to that sort of treatment against one of their cubs, and they’re to the right of Atilla the Hun), and possibly her other grandchildren.
I think most people here are saying that there’s a difference between showing support for a person (or relationship) and showing support for a position. I’d be willing to sacrifice any of my principles for a day or two in order to be there for somebody whom I love. After all, attending a wedding doesn’t constitute an endorsement, and staying home certainly won’t affect the bride and groom’s decision.
If asked, the grandmother could say, for example, “You know I don’t approve of homosexuality, but I do want you to be happy, and if going to your wedding will contribute to that happiness, I’ll be there.” But since nobody’s going to say, “Hey, what are you doing here? I thought you didn’t like same-sex couples!” it’s a moot point. (If she can’t go without telling everyone, “They’re going to hell!”, well, she has other problems to deal with.)
I’m not sure what a principle-based boycott (even in the form of a polite “Sorry, I can’t make it”) would accomplish except to say, “I’m more interested in how I feel about this issue than in how I feel about you.” And personally, I think that’s self-righteous and unnecessarily cruel.
What Hestia said.
mythago, et al.: Grandma may indeed feel that by attending the wedding she is signalling approval she doesn’t feel and this may bother her greatly and seem to make her an “accomplice” in sin. I wouldn’t feel that way, but I know people who would, and it does not necessarily involve gay marriage, but some other situation –for instance, my uncle became quite upset when he realized that he was being asked by his daughter to preside over a very fancy and expensive wedding when she was already pregnant. He approved of the groom (at that time anyway, but that’s a different story) but he felt like a hypocrite presiding over such a traditional wedding, given his religious views and the tenor of the religious service.
Grandma may be cool visiting the couple in a more private setting, or at other family only gatherings. She may wish to see her granddaughter only, for lunch or whatever, sans SO. It’s up to both grandma and granddaughter to figure out what they can live with.
I agree with Barbara. In the end they both have to decide what they would choose to do based on a lot of different factors. There isn’t a cut and dried way to proceede for anyone. Granddaguther may love her grandma deeply and really understand and want her continued suupport in life; as she raises her children, or as she makes a soup for the first time.
Her overall relationship with her grandma may be more important that her grandmother not coming to her wedding, for whatever reason that is; planes makme her sick, she is agrophobic, or she doesn’t approve.
So I don’t see that this is a relationship doomer at all.
Really? I think that somebody disapproving of your relationship to the point where they boycott your wedding and refuse to treat you as a couple is definitely into “Grandma? I have no Grandma” territory.
ESPECIALLY if there are grandchildren, by the way. How to explain to your children that it’s OK that Grandma never acknowledges Daddy’s existence and wishes Mommy and Daddy had never gotten married?
I value my spouse and respect my marriage. To me, that means that if a relative decides that it’s wrong for me to be married to that person, and they refuse to acknowledge that person as my spouse, well, nice to have known their sorry, judgmental asses, but I owe my spouse loyalty. And that means not rolling over for people who do not treat them with the respect they deserve.
Somehow I doubt everyone would be as kind to a Grandma who boycotted an interracial wedding, or won’t invite granddaughter’s husband to dinner because she “doesn’t eat with coloreds”.
But that is how you would act mythago, not how someone else will act. And yeah, maybe this woman will never, ever have anything to do with grandma again; maybe as she is dying grandaughter will send her a note saying tata you old bat or just never show up even if she pleads for her to come. Or maybe grandma comes anyway. Or maybe she meets them for dinner afterward. Or maybe a thousand maybes. I’ve no idea what this two people will do, how they will continue their relationship.
I am getting angry, I suppose, because it seems to me many commentators are scripting these two people’s relationship; if grandma doesn’t come because she is afraid of flying we will accept it, but not if she disapproves of the wedding. Nope, then will boycott her for the rest of her life. That will teach her.
I may invite someone who is a vegetarian to a function in which there is meat; I would try and make sure they had vegetarian food there. But if they said; “well, I can’t come because there is meat”. “Okay, don’t come. I wish you would, If there is something I can do except not have meat? No. Okay. I really will miss you.”
Whether grandma comes or doesn’t come to the wedding it will not change her feelings about the wedding. It seems to me you aren’t asking her to change her mind and come, you are asking her to change her beliefs.
No one is obligated to like me. 99.9% of the world probably doesn’t even know I exist! You don’t like me because I disapprove of soemthing you do, okay. That won’t, or shouldn’t in my mind, affect how I feel about you (which would be, I probably do like you, I like most people I meet.)nor should I change my beliefs at your behest.
And vice versa. Don’t approve that I don’t go to a wedding; tell me you don’t and why. Okay. Like or don’t like me afterward. Okay. I can’t control that.
I can only control my own behaviour and whether or not I like myself for what I do, or don’t do.
I can separate myself from myself. There are some weddings I may not go to; if I don’t go because of my beliefs it will be because I believe this action will separate me from G-d and when I do that I separate me from myself.
I know a heck of a lot of people don’t understand that. G-d is myth. G-d doesn’t exist. But I feel G-d does. So when I go through life I try, and so many times fail, to do what I think is right in the
eyes of G-d. When I fail, when I feel I haven’t lived up to doing what is right, I betray myself.
I don’t know if that changes anything for anyone, but that is how I feel. I’m at a loss to give a better explanation.
Rachel Ann: That’s not what she did. She didn’t give regrets, she gave disapproval. I regret that I am unable to attend is different than I am not coming because I disapprove. One is simply not able to come the other is using the wedding to draw attention to your self-righteous intolerance.
And this is nothing like witholding a toy from a child, FrumDad. Parents may do so for children, to a degree, because they are rearing them. But adults are not rearing other adults and therefore it’s not our business to be handing out punishments to each other.
Okay, you know what? No one here is obligated to continue a relationship with, or approve the actions of, a relative who would punish them for marrying someone of whom they do not approve.
I find it rather rich that it’s somehow terrible to stop wasting time on someone who have treated us so shabbily, but it’s perfectly okay for someone to reject us for who we are or who we love.
No one here is scripting the relationship between the grandmother and her granddaughter. We are talking about how such an action strikes us, and how we would feel if it were done to us. You can’t have it all ways. You can’t say that “Gosh, I think your lesbianism/biracial relationship/unwed pregnancy is disgusting and immoral and I want nothing to do with it. I simply cannot go and wish you well.” You can’t do that and yet then expect the people whom you treated so shabbily to waste another minute of their time on you. If they do, then great, wonderful. But if they don’t I can completely understand. Why should they go to this person’s wedding and give gifts and well wishes when they were cut off from such things? Why should they go to a baby shower for a “legitimate” child when their own child was deemed a bastard, a stain, and not worthy of this person’s recognition? Why *should* they spend energy on someone who has rejected them so, when there are plenty of people who have accepted them and wished them well?
You reject someone to stay close to God, well, that’s your choice. But accept the consequences and stop hiding behind some BS smokescreen about liberal hypocrisy. You can’t make a grand statement about someone’s dirtiness and immorality and then expect a relationship with them afterwards. And really, if attending a certain wedding will keep you far from God, then I would think associating with such lowlives will also keep you far from God.
Amanda,
where did she say that she wrote that to her grandchild and simply did not say “regrets?” I may have missed that; I have problems reading from the internet at times. I had the impression that she was asking what to do and was answered to not go, but to try and do it in a way that didn’t quash her relationship with her grandchild.
She does not have to give a reason when she writes “regrets” whether people “know” the reason or not is beyond the point. All she has to do is return the reply card on time with her answer being Yes or
No.
Sheezebub where did I say “Gosh, I think your lesbianism/biracial relationship/unwed pregnancy is disgusting and immoral and I want nothing to do with it. I simply cannot go and wish you well.”
Nor did I ” make a grand statement about someone’s dirtiness and immorality”
I can’t make a grand statement about someone else’s immorality as a whole. I can’t and won’t.
I don’t think lesbianism/biracial/unwed pregnancy is disgusting. I don’t find homosexuality disgusting. I don’t find triads/quadads disgusting. I think the actions are immoral. I don’t think the person is any more or less moral than I am. I am saying that if I felt that a particular action would imply support for an action I thought immoral I wouldn’t take that action. AN ACTION. That particular action.
And aren’t you saying the same thing. You would find my non-attendence immoral. Therefore you would react by not having a relationship with me. Fine.(Um, btw, Where did I imply that they then had to come to my wedding and give me lots of baby gifts?)
I’ve ennumerated that I have done immoral actions.ou are quite mistaken if you think I feel superior to anyone. I have no such illusions about myself. I am not putting us on a scale.
I have also stated that if someone found my actions immoral and didn’t want to attend a function that was fine with me. They can have that feeling and if it stops them okay. I’ll miss them. I’ll have a relationship with them still.
You wouldn’t? Okay too. Don’t.
Whether this grandmother and grandchild will have or not is up to them. If grandaughter accepts her grandmother’s actions than is granddaughter doing something wrong? And before you ask, if she cuts off grandmother, that is her choice too. No, I wouldn’t find her actions wrong–I would discourage it…I would encourage her to reach out to her grandmother and find common ground with her, but tell her she was wrong? No. Her choice. Her grandmother’s choice.
I am not trying to bs you here; I wnat to know and understnad the basis for YOUR particular moral code. What is underlying your code?
Do no harm someone said.(if it was you, I apologize for forgetting…I just don’t want to keep scrolling back) Okay. But then define harm for me. What is considered harm.
Accept everyone for who they are. Again. What does that mean?
Maybe this is really a different post and it isn’t fair to Ampersand to hijack it this way.
I want to know the bones of the code under which you operate. I know mine; the Torah. I can elaborate if you wish, but I somehow doubt you wish to know. I am asking you yours; not to make fun of you but to understand.
I had a “mixed race” babysitter (that sounds awful) — her dad was an American GI, her mom was vietnamese, and she was adopted by a white couple who eventually settled in Louisiana. There were nine altogether, some all caucasian (the bio children) and the others of varying backgrounds. One of the bios married into a wealthy southern family and disinvited my babysitter from the wedding because she didn’t want her new family and their social group to realize that she had a “colored” sister. I was shocked to my shoes. You bet I would have said good-bye to sis forevermore, how could anyone do such a mean spirited awful thing? My babysitter, believe it or not, continued to see her sister, though to a much more limited degree. Sis was okay with babysitter — just didn’t want the social stigma. Yes, it’s puking territory, but I suspect that’s what would happen to grandma in this example.
But you must realize, grandma is the real loser here, and granddaughter would do well to remember that too. Grandma has gained nothing by not showing up except the incredibly cold comfort of having lived up to her principles, but at least, I hope, in a way that didn’t ruin the wedding for anyone else, least of all the principals — the only thing she can do is to salvage the relationship by not being ugly or nasty and continuing to convey her “love the sinner hate the sin” mentality. Granddaughter, of course, can blow off her invitations and overtures if they continue to be made. She’s in the driver’s seat from that day forward.
I’m really enjoying reading this discussion. I’d like to remind everyone to keep things as civil as possible. In particular, folks should please try to be nice while disagreeing with Rachel Ann, since being the minority opinion in a discussion is not easy.
A few points:
1) There is no question that the God Squad is calling on the grandmother to use nonattendence to “send a message,” which is different from just sendind regrets. From the article:
It is this that bothers me, personally; not the decision to not attend, but the idea that attending or not attending should be used as a means of expressing the grandmother’s beliefs about same-sex relationships. (Had the authors instead advised the grandmother to make up some excuse and send regrets, I wouldn’t have objected).
2) Rachel, this is a sincere question. (I wanted to ask the God Squad this, but didn’t because I think they’re unlikel to ever answer me). Where exactly, in the Torah, does it say that attending a loved one’s wedding (or, in our current example, a committment ceremony) means that you’ve approved of all aspects of the relationship?
I mean, if the Torah (or the Talmud) clearly and explicitly says that, then I do understand that you may feel you need to go along with that.
But if the Torah doesn’t explicitly say that, then I genuinely don’t understand why attending a same-sex wedding and saying “I wish you happiness” is, for you, indistinguishable from saying “I approve of same-sex weddings and think same-sex relationships are just as good as any other relationship.” Especially since you can use other days and other opportunities to make your position on the gay marriage question clear.
Hi Ampersand,
I’m glad you are enjoying the discussion.
1) Thank you for pointing out the section to me. I did read the article, but I sometimes have trouble following when I read online.
I wouldn’t be not attending to send a message of disapproval, I would be not attending because I wouldn’t want to send a message of approval. I think there is a distinction there; a fine line I will admit, but it is not to say “I disapprove” it is to avoid saying “I approve.” However, I wouldn’t want to make up a lie. Technically, in terms of politness, no one needs to give an excuse for why they aren’t coming (and I think one isn’t suppose to ask) one just says “I decline.”
I just asked my dh, who is a Rabbi, but won’t call himself that (He works as a computer programmer.Anyone with computer programming connections in Israel please write me!!! ) He made the connection between sitting in a resturant where pork (or other non-kosher food) is served; we are not permitted to do that.(I can’t go into a church either, to attend a religious service. If I were invited to a wedding in a church/mosque by a non-Jewish friend, I would wait outside.But that is a different issue, and no, we don’t consider Moselms or Christians immoral)
It is an immoral act (in the case of two men marrying) and to go would be celebrating two people engaging in an act that is forbidden and comes with a pretty strict penalty. There are questions as to whether lesbianism is forbidden, and there is some indication that it is indirectly referred to in talking about following the behaviour of those around you…but it is late now and I don’t have time to find the exact phrase.
I don’t know. Does that answer your question?
Rachel Ann, I was commenting on the idea that it’s okay to boycott a wedding or any other event on moral grounds, but that it’s somehow terrible for the boycotted people to stop wasting their time on the boycotters. I was not talking about you specifically–at least not until the end. I was obviously unclear.
And yes, I’ve seen this thing with weddings and baby showers. People who wouldn’t go to the baby shower of a single mom because that was immoral and they’d be condoning her lifestyle. A year or two later when these people are married and expecting to have a baby, there are no qualms about inviting the disgraced woman to the shower, with hands outstretched for gifts. People who were quite happy to have a gay relative attend their weddings and get their gifts and good wishes can’t bring themselves to reciprocate because SSM is immoral.
My “code” as you call it is pretty simple, and I’ve stated it before: I love my friends/relatives more than I hate their choices. So if a friend married someone in a very conservative church and planned on following the tenents of wifely submission, I would still go and wish her well. Even though I don’t agree with the idea of wifely submission, and even find it personally unethical. Even though I am not religious in any way, shape, or form and don’t particularly feel comfortable with strong displays of piety. Even though the church itself espouses things I vehemently disagree with. I could say that in going and participating, I’m codoning what the church does and teaches and decline to attend for that reason. But in doing so I would hurt my friend. And frankly, I’d want to wish her well and celebrate with her.
What is harm? I’d say boycotting a wedding to make a moral point at the expense of those one is supposed to love is harmful. It’s hurtful and cruel, IMO.
Define “accept everyone as they are”? It means I won’t penalize someone for not being the way I think they should be. (I will stop contact for my sake if they go out of their way to hurt me.) If I have that much of a problem with what someone is doing, I tell them beforehand. I know a woman who doesn’t agree with the concept of gay marriage, but she went to her sister’s commitment ceremony to wish her well. She went (and smiled and hugged her sister and her sister’s SO) because she wanted to be there and share this with her sister. Her sister was more important to her than her feelings about SSM.
It’s not a question of me deciding the morality of someone who boycotted a wedding or baby shower. It’s a question of energy–is this a relationship I should invest energy in? My answer would be no. Yes, I’d still speak to them at functions where we were both present, but I’d hardly make any effort to make contact or maintain a relationship. Why should I, when I’ve wished them well and gone to their weddings/showers/rites of passage–even if I didn’t approve of their choices? I deserve better than that treatment. My spouse or my child would deserve better than that treatment. I would take it personally, no matter how bloodless the explaination of “I just find the action immoral”. The spouse (or out of wedlock child, etc.) is a part of the boycottee’s life; of course they will always know from the boycott on that they aren’t accepted.
You might not like the fact that this would happen–you’ve stated several times that we are free to make the choice to end the relationship, but seem rather offended at the suggestion that among some of us at least, the relationship would end. But actions have consequences, and you can’t expect people to be willing to spend time and energy on those who have hurt them. It’s not a matter of “I’ll show them“. It’s a matter of “Who am I going to spend my energy on, someone who wished me well and welcomed me, or someone who did not come to my wedding and rejected me?” If you feel this is something that God commands, all the power to you. But accept the very real possiblility that in doing so, the boycottee may take it as a rejection; you may hurt them deeply.
I don’t think lesbianism/biracial/unwed pregnancy is disgusting. I don’t find homosexuality disgusting. I don’t find triads/quadads disgusting. I think the actions are immoral. I don’t think the person is any more or less moral than I am. I am saying that if I felt that a particular action would imply support for an action I thought immoral I wouldn’t take that action. AN ACTION. That particular action.
Frankly, I woudn’t be comfortable with someone who found my action immoral enough to make a statement about it by hurting me. So if I had a child out of wedlock and a relative made it clear that she wouldn’t come to the baby shower or the Christening because she felt my “action” was immoral, I would not feel comfortable around her. I would always wonder just what she was thinking when she was around me and the child–someone who had enough of a problem with my action to boycott the shower. I would take it as condemnation of me and the child. Same goes if I got married to someone a relative did not approve of–maybe he was of a different race, religion, or nationality. Maybe he was too poor. Maybe he was not a he but a she. Either way, I would feel mighty awkward looking over the dinner table at a relative who couldn’t bring himself to wish us well, whose disapproval of my choice was stronger than his love for me.
A question of what is moral and what is immoral, I think, is unlikely to be decided here, although to my mind it is quite clear. ‘Twas I who identified my moral code as “do no harm,” and I just don’t think it’s all that difficult to determine what constitutes harm and what doesn’t. For example, no one’s ever quite explained to me how it is that a same sex marriage harms the institution of marriage, or the marriage of a heterosexual couple, as claimed by many opponents of SSM.
What it comes down to for me (and I am thinking out loud here, so please pardon me if I somehow do the electronic equivalent of a stutter) is this: Rachel Ann, I just don’t think you can say “I’m not doing such and such because I’m disapprove, but I’m not doing it because I don’t approve.” There’s not a fine line there, there just isn’t. Either you approve, or you don’t.
That said, I fully understand that your religious beliefs, as do many others, mark homosexual acts as “immoral,” and I’ve heard over and over again the “hate the sin not the sinner line” from some Christians. Again, it may sound the same. But when you’re standing between a minister saying that — “hate the sin love the sinner” — and a crowd of 300 followers murmuring “f***ing queers,” the difference is completely moot.
And now back to the grandma and the wedding. If she considers homosexuality immoral, that’s fine. She should refrain from taking a female lover. This idea that should she attend she would be showing tacit approval of homosexuality just sounds a little … well … it sounds arrogant. Your note of such arguments, Rachel Ann, about not attending a church service etc strike me similarly, and those are one of the key disagreements I have with some of the strictures of orthodox Judaism.
And, I should add so as not to single out orthodox Judaism … other religions as well. I just don’t believe that religion should constrict, but on the other hand, that’s almost the purpose of an organised religion — to set up some guidelines etc.
Spirituality should open one’s heart to the love that created the world, in my opinion, not close it to any part of that love.
Well, newswriter, the whole idea that one knows anything better than one’s fellow man or woman, spiritually speaking, can be considered (and often is considered) to be a form of arrogance. What grandma considers to be specifically wrongful IS the wedding. I don’t agree with grandma, I really don’t, but just as I wouldn’t (or at least I hope I wouldn’t) stand around watching a man beat his wife, I guess grandma doesn’t want to stand around to witness something she considers to be wrong, even if she can’t do anything about it. I mean, in my family, at the end of the service, everyone stands and cheers. Should grandma applaud? And if she doesn’t is she ruining the good vibes?
Before you bite my head off, I think for most of us, what we have difficulty getting past, is the idea that spiritual and religous beliefs are essentially private, and we are puzzled by grandma’s thought that she’s signalling approval by attending — but then why do we think that she’s signalling disapproval by sitting the affair out? (Even if she doesn’t specifically say that she’s sending a message, granddaughter knows most likely what’s going on.) But there are large blocks of people for whom religion is at least as much a public as it is a private undertaking, and grandma obviously belongs to one of those groups.
I go back to my first comment. If grandma is that exercised about the wedding, it’s better for all concerned that she stay away. (I had a friend whose fiance’s family wouldn’t come to her wedding because she was Episcopal (as good as Catholic) and this is the conclusion she drew — that she didn’t want a block of malcontents ruining the fun for everyone else.) So put me in the committed well-wishers only camp — the marriage is much more likely to get off to a good start.
I’m not in the habit of biting anyone’s head off (unless you consider those little chocolate cookies I had last winter) and I humbly apologise if I’ve appeared to have done so.
Not having a block of malcontents around is a good point, but I still have a problem with what appears to me to be extreme small mindedness of refusing to come to a wedding in that manner. It just strikes me as mean-spirited, and as I think Sheelzebub has said, choosing a position over a person.
I may have misunderstood about Grandma, but I thought that the idea was that she would boycott the ceremony specifically to make the point of her disapproval. That, from here, is deliberately hurtful.
And is it true that Grandma just doesn’t like the idea of the ceremony? Everything else is AOK?
On the other hand, and I’m going to do a hypothetical here, which I truly dislike doing, but if I were throwing a wedding, and knew that Grandma disapproved so thoroughly, I believe I would likely speak very plainly to her, explaining that I am having this ceremony, and that afterward my partner and I will consider ourselves married. And I would tell Grandma that I understand her background and beliefs don’t allow her to honor that, so I won’t put her in the uncomfortable position of having to decide what to do about an invitation. But — I will not pretend that it didn’t happen. I will not pretend I have no partner.
I do indeed have a great deal of difficulty understanding public expressions of religion or spirituality. Those for me are very private and the business of no one else.
This is such a great website.
I ran into a similar, though less severe, situation a few years ago. My fiance and I had some bumpy spots in our relationship when we first got together, and my best friend (and roommate at the time) decided that she disapproved of him. She refused to meet him, and even threatened to move out if I ever let him spend time in our apartment. She was mostly acting out of sincere concern for me being hurt, but the way she reacted was more hurtful than any of the stuff my fiance and I have worked through.
It’s been close to three years, and we’re getting married in a month. My friend has pretty much got over her diapproval (she’s not boycotting our wedding)–but she can’t just undo it now. She still hasn’t really spent time with the future Mr. Thel, and he doesn’t have much fondness for her, either, after the icy shoulder he got the few times they did run into each other.
I understand her motivation, and we are still friends, though much less close than we were. But her good intentions don’t make up for the meanness of her actions. And I think arrogance is a good way to describe it. She was certain she knew what was right for me, and punished me when I didn’t make the “right” decision.
Anyway. The title of the post is “boycotting weddings is not a loving act.” It may be that boycotting an “immoral” wedding is a pure or righteous act, according to the laws of the boycotter’s religion, but those things are not the same as a loving act. The boycotter should not confuse the two. I’m pretty sure the one being boycotted will not.
For me, this wedding issue still comes down to which you think is more important: your belief system (i.e., you), or your relationship (i.e., others).
If it’s the former for any reason–religious or otherwise–then stay home. Don’t be surprised if the bride and/or groom holds a grudge, though: You’ve just shown that your love for them is outweighed by your principles.
If it’s the latter, then go to the wedding and act in a way that won’t hurt the bride and groom. (Which does not mean you have to yell, “Go same-sex marriage!” at every opportunity, just that you should try not to draw attention to yourself.) It’s their day, not yours, and if you aren’t willing to put your principles aside for their happiness and comfort, then you should rethink what’s actually important to you.
As far as weddings are concerned, I advocate the second decision. The only consequence is that you spend a few hours refraining from vocally supporting what you believe. You haven’t ceased to believe it; you believe it no less strongly; but you’ve proven that you value love above everything else. Which is a courageous choice, and one that I think is consistent with every religion.
Well said. I agree wholeheartedly.
As do I, but I am one who attends no legal weddings and will attend no legal weddings until all Americans are allowed to marry under law. When invited to weddings, I don’t make a show about it — I just decline politely, send a gift, and take the couple out for lunch or dinner on another day. In this way, I can treat all my friends the same way without cooperating with the government’s inhumane double standard.
Commitment ceremonies I do attend, and with great enthusiasm, and I do look forward to attending two weddings (one lesbian, the other hetero) in Massachusetts in the near future.
It seems to me you aren’t asking her to change her mind and come, you are asking her to change her beliefs.
No. And that’s the whole point.
See, Grandma’s beliefs here are not about the WEDDING, but about the MARRIAGE. Grandma is not saying, I don’t mind you two girls being wife and wife, but the whole idea of the ceremony is awful. She is making a statement about the granddaughter’s life, period–at the end of the wedding, granddaughter will be married and living as a married woman. Grandma is making a statement about how her granddaughter will live the rest of her life.
And she’s entitled. Granddaughter is also entitled to tell her “Since you so strongly disapprove of my life partner and the rest of my life’s plan, you can stay out of it.”
Yes, some people feel differently than I. There are plenty of people who put loyalty to their spouse and standing up for their own beliefs a distant second to anxiously trying to please Grandma. *shrug*
By the way, Rachel Ann, I’d note that not all Jews (even rabbis) would agree that you have to stand outside at a non-Jewish friend’s wedding. Frankly, I’ve never heard of such a ban, or of a ban on sitting (but not eating) at a restaurant where treyf is served. There is a difference between OBSERVING and PARTICIPATING. It’s no sin for my Gentile friends to eat pork, or to marry in a church. As long as I don’t ask for a bite or sing “Amen” along with the priest, what’s the problem?
See, Grandma’s beliefs here are not about the WEDDING, but about the MARRIAGE. Grandma is not saying, I don’t mind you two girls being wife and wife, but the whole idea of the ceremony is awful. She is making a statement about the granddaughter’s life, period–at the end of the wedding, granddaughter will be married and living as a married woman. Grandma is making a statement about how her granddaughter will live the rest of her life.
And she’s entitled. Granddaughter is also entitled to tell her “Since you so strongly disapprove of my life partner and the rest of my life’s plan, you can stay out of it.”
Yup, yup, yup. Exactly.
In fact, because their “moral” stance is so strong as to make them “boycott” the ceremony, I’d say that they were, at best, hypocritical, at worst, immoral to even attempt to continue the relationship whatsoever.
If you so strongly disapprove of this person’s life, then you should be willing to boycott far more than the ceremony, you should boycott their life.
Anyone who tries to make a “moral” stance by not attending the wedding but later tries to be a part of that very life they made a statement against is beneath contempt.
See,
It seems to me that many of you are much harsher on grandma than grandma is on granddaughter.
Look, I have said and said again that is a decision granddaughter has to make and it would be interesting to find out what grandmother and granddaughter did do. But like Barbara said; if not going is stating disapproval, why is going not considered approval? I’m just seeing it the other way; my whoever it would be would know I disapprove; my going would be stating tacit approval.
It isn’t that I’m upset that daughter might cut off grandma, it is that many here take it as almost a given. Grandma doesn’t come, cut her off. That will teach the old bat! I wouldn’t do that; grandma doesn’t come for whatever reason, even if I think she could have, should have, whaterver, I’m not cutting her out of my life, I don’t plan on holding it over her head the rest of her life, I just get over it.
No I can’t set aside my beliefs for someone else’s sake; that is setting me–and G-d aside– for someone else…Granddaughter isn’t going to do that. She believes she should marry her love, despite how it makes grandma feel.
Yes I realize that there are differences in opinion, which is why I would ask my Rabbi. That’s what he is there for!
Yes years down the line I might feel regrets; especially if granddaughter cut me off and never spoke to me again. Life is about regrets. The same argument is used against abortion; woman might have regrets later. Guess what, regrets are part of life. I might have regrets that day, next year feel I did right…I would have to make a decision based on that day; and not on how everyone else felt; I would have to base the decison of what I felt is right and moral.
I don’t know if I have answered questions here, I don’t know if I have explained properly. I did not grow up religious; I became religious, slowly—and it is not like I sit there and just don’t know other’s feel differently or react differently.
But this is me; faulty me.
Rachel Ann, you aren’t “faulty;” you just have an opinion. That’s pretty healthy, as far as I’m concerned. :)
Now on to my opinion:
Yes, I’m angrier at the grandmother than the granddaughter. The granddaughter isn’t acting selfishly; the grandmother is. Choosing to marry someone isn’t hurtful; refusing to support someone’s happiness is. We are not required to consider other’s feelings when it comes to our own lives; we must consider those feelings when we’re asked to participate in those lives.
It’s not that I think the granddaughter should stop speaking to her grandmother; rather, I believe she would be justified in doing so. Again, the grandmother has just indicated that her principles are more important than her relationship with her granddaughter. I can see why the granddaughter might want to separate herself from her grandmother–especially since those principles condemn her entire life.
[I]f not going is stating disapproval, why is going not considered approval?
Because (in this case) the wedding is the main event; homosexuality is only indirectly associated with it.
I advocate gun control, but seeing a Charlton Heston movie doesn’t mean I support the NRA. (Seeing “Soylent Green” at an NRA fundraiser, however, is a different story: The stated purpose of the event is to advocate for the NRA, which I wouldn’t do.)
I think bean is right when she says that if the grandmother disapproves so strongly of homosexuality that she won’t even attend her granddaughter’s wedding, it doesn’t make sense that she wants to be in her granddaughter’s life at all.
I would have to make a decision based on that day; and not on how everyone else felt
I disagree. In this case, you should make your decision based on what someone else feels, namely, the bride. But that’s because I feel that what’s “right and moral” is nurturing relationships.
Again, you can do what you want to do for whatever reasons–you can feel your convictions are more important than anything else–but that still doesn’t make boycotting a wedding a “loving,” or even nice, act.
PS. I don’t think this issue has to do with religion at all–or rather, the fact that some morals are religious is irrelevant. I have plenty of principles, and I consider myself atheist.
Hestia,
First, let me say, that I have no reason to doubt you are a person of strong principles. And thank you for your rseponse,
Yes, if nurturing human relationships is the moral principle on which you abide, then boycotting a wedding could be seen as a cruel act. There are two people’s perceptions here.
I disagree with bean, and I guess that is where some misunderstanding lays, because, I would be giving of myself for all my grandchilds years (um, no grandkids yet that I know about) but this one day I would be holding myself in reserve. I don’t know how to explain that holding back would be for me an act of love; and how I could see my way to supporting my grandchild through the rest of the years; including baby gifts, and housewarming presnets and being there if the beloved is sick or dies or leaves (without gloating I may add).
But if nurturing a relationship is a guiding principle and one person fails to act well, is there no room for forgiveness? Acceptance of that person’s flaw? Woudn’t granddaughter, under this maxim be, in a certain sense, obligated to try and work the issue out, and forgive and go on?
It seems the two of us are unmovable in our postions; would that mean we could never be friends with one another? Never share a coffee or ideas? That you will always view me as some sort of evil being? That you would disbelieve me if I said; I don’t know enough about you, but probably if we met I would like you?
Can we disagree strongly in this regard yet still “love” each other? Advocate for each other? Care what happens to one another?
Even more to the point, can we help each other even if our morals offend?
What is the cut off point for that?
At what point do you find hate acceptable?
I wouldn’t do that; grandma doesn’t come for whatever reason, even if I think she could have, should have, whaterver, I’m not cutting her out of my life, I don’t plan on holding it over her head the rest of her life, I just get over it.
My mother did not attend my sisters second wedding because it was a civil wedding, and my sisters first wedding has not been annulled. My sister was hurt, but was did not make a big deal about it. Eventually, for whatever reason, my mother came around and did attend my other sisters civil wedding. (Although, in that case there was no non-annulment issue to deal with.)
I might speculate that one of the “reasons” might have been mom’s friends amazement?! Who knows?
Obviously, everyone needs to do what their conscious tells them to do. Everyone else gets to form their opinion. My guess? I don’t know grandma, but if she loves her granddaughter, and doesn’t go to the wedding, she will likely regret it whether or not her granddaughter cuts her out of her life afterwards.
Not going is only “stating disapproval” because Grandma (if she’s foolish enough to take the God Squad’s advice) is using nonattendance as a means of self-expression. Nothing is forcing her to think of attendance/non-attendance that way; it’s just how she’s choosing to use it.
Since nonattendance doesn’t necessarily get used as a means of sending of message – that’s just the way the God Squad is urging Grandma to use it – neither does attendance.
My poor head is starting to swim here.
So you feel that attendence only has the meaning of acceptance if non-attendance has the meaning of disapproval? It isn’t the act it is the intention behind the act? Everything could be the same; same “sorry I can’t come”, same feeling that it is not a proper marriage, etc. but if her intention, unstated, is that she is staying away because to show her disapproval then she is in the wrong?
Grandma doesn’t come, cut her off. That will teach the old bat!
Gosh, did you even read the post? Or do you feel you can just stuff words into others’ mouths so there’s really no need?
There is a difference between nonattendance and a boycott. People do not attend weddings for all sorts of reasons. When you deliberately and openly refrain from attending because it offends your moral beliefs, that’s a boycott. And the purpose of a boycott is to punish or compel behavior from the boycotted person (or business).
It’s also not about “teaching” Grandma anything. It’s actually about respecting Grandma’s wishes, is it not? Grandma has stated that she doesn’t approve of granddaughter’s spouse or life-choices. Well, then, it seems only fair to honor Grandma by refraining from rubbing her nose in them, isn’t it?
um, no grandkids yet that I know about
See, I have kids, so my behavior is not just about me anymore. If I anxiously try to please bigoted, controlling relatives who disdain their parents’ marriage and choices, what kind of message would THAT send them? Not a good one, I believe.
After all, half of them comes from their other parent. They are hugged, rocked to sleep, and taught by the person with whom I chose to share their life. Imagine how a child feels to hear from Grandma that their parents’ marriage is bad and never should have happened.
Mythago,
The statement I made, w hich you quoted, was shortened, not by you, but by me, as I thought people would generally understand what I was referring to; to clarify; if Grandma boycotts the wedding then cut her off. Maybe I shouldn’t have used the words old bat.
We have different ideas of bigoted. That a particular marraige may be bad in my book does not mean I think the people within it are bad, immoral or of lesser stature than I am (what I meant by I am faulty.) I have no idea how G-d will “grade” me or any other person.
Hestia said (hoping italics work) But that’s because I feel that what’s “right and moral” is nurturing relationships.
This is a moral principle that I can understand, and somewhat agree with. Their are other principles which would override this one, but it is something I can understand.
Which is why I asked Hestia if it weren’t right and moral of granddaughter to forgive and forget. Perhaps it isn’t. Perhaps grandma’s violation of the edict, if Hestia doesn’t mind me calling it that, would render the principle moot in terms of granddaughter/grandmother relationships from then on. Grandma, by not coming to show her disapproval (even if she said nothing, but the disapproval was tacit) loses her right to the relationship.
In other words (Hestia) is it comparable to my philosophy in regards to killing? Don’t kill, but if someone comes to kill you rise up and kill them first. Or is it similar to my thoughts on denegrating speech; don’t speak badly about someone else, even if they choose this form of speech regarding you (however, I would have more sympathy for the first person so wronged…they would both BE wrong, but I could understand the second person better?)
Obviously killing isn’t equal to boycotting a marriage, I’m not saying it is nor trying to imply that Hestia thinks it is. I’m talking about responsive behaviour.
Lucia may very well be right that grandma will regret it later; I don’t necessarily think that the future possiblity of regret should rule one’s decisions of today. Certainly consider them; but this is also the arguements of anti-abortionist and those who tell their child; if you get yourselves sterilized you’ll regret not having children later. This is all true, this is a possiblity, but it shouldn’t be the overriding factor.
Grandma, by not coming to show her disapproval (even if she said nothing, but the disapproval was tacit) loses her right to the relationship.
And again: it’s not about the single event of the wedding. It’s about Grandma’s disapproval of the granddaughter’s marriage partner, the way she will live her life (hopefully for the rest of her life), and her children.
A wedding is, in most cases, two people getting up in front of their family, friends and community to make a public affirmation of their commitment. When somebody boycotts that affirmation, they are expressing–in the strongest possible terms–that they cannot accept the commitment or the people making it.
And THAT is why Grandma should be left to sit shiva for her lesbian granddaughter or whatever makes her happy.
As for “forgive and forget,” you can’t forgive and forget an ongoing insult.
Okay mythago,
I can understand how you would feel. I believe I would feel differently (about anyone who boycotted something important to me). But that is how you feel and I can understand. I differ with you on the idea that it is an ongoing insult; it does seem you wish Grandma would change her belief (because whether or not she goes to the wedding for whatever reason her belief that the marriage is not moral will not change.)
There is a person I will have little or nothing to do (save rescue in case of danger or something similar) with because of this person’s actions to other people. This person probably thinks my distaste is pesonal; it is not. I can’t elaborate because it would do more damage.
So I sympathise with how you feel. In the case of grandma I think you would be wrong, but perhaps you, if you could understand the circumstances of my action, would feel I was wrong also.
I do think other gays and lesbians would think differently. Those who have stayed by me knew I was an Orthdox Jew and would disapprove of their sexual behaviour, but they didn’t seem to feel I didn’t like or care about them.
Rachel Ann said this:
>>If I were invited to a wedding in a church/mosque by a non-Jewish friend, I would wait outside.But that is a different issue, and no, we don’t consider Moselms or Christians immoral
I think, if I had an orthodox Jewish grandmother who I had watched standing outside the church for Moslem and Christian weddings, I would understand that failure to attend my wedding did not necessarily reflect disapproval. It would be pretty clear she had held herself to a certain standard about following certain types of rules (which I may or may not understand) consistently.
On the other hand, if my grandmother had cheerfully gone along with all sorts of apparent violations of Orthodox rules, and then suddenly gotten religion for my marriage, and then seemed to lose it again immediately afterwards, her non-attendance would make me feel very angry toward her.
In many cases, how I someones specific action can depend on what I think motivates the action. The first grandma I could see as someone who felt it was very, very important to follow the specific rules, even when it was very difficult for her. The second one is a grandma who may be picking and choosing depending on her whim.
>>Lucia may very well be right that grandma will regret it later; I don’t necessarily think that the future possiblity of regret should rule one’s decisions of today.
Rachel Ann, I mostly agree with you on this. I’m trying to think of how to express the slight distinction between what you say and what I think. Suffice it to say, likely, the grannie who is making the decision does not anticipate regretting her action– so she takes it. Later regret occurs.
In some sense, it is impossible for the possibility of future regret to affect you actions. You can’t really tell in advance whether or not you’ll regret something.
I really feel as if I have hurt some people’s feelings. I don’t know why I react to certain posts, and I don’t know why this particular one put a bug in my ear.
I also worry (I am a great worrier. Practice daily) that I shanghied this post, which isn’t fair. So I posted the questions I’ve sort of been asking all along on my blog— Not that I want to put a damper on any conversation here…I’ll continue to post here, but I’ve a feeling people are sort of sick of me.
Anyway, my questions are sincere. They are the questions I’ve wanted to ask for many years.
it does seem you wish Grandma would change her belief
Sigh. For the Nth time: it’s not about Grandma changing or not changing. Grandma has, by boycotting, said “I do not approve of your spouse or of your marriage and the way you live your life. My disapproval is so strong that I will openly refuse to attend the celebration of your new life as a married woman.”
You seem to be sympathizing an awful lot with Grandma and her view of lesbians. Well, fine, whatever, but you’re missing that if Grandma has those strong beliefs, she is going to have to keep expressing them over and over, and it would be disloyal (not to mention a little unhealthy) for granddaughter to put with that.
I doubt you’d accept it meekly if your grandparents refused to invite your lawful husband to seder because they didn’t approve of his skin color, or tell your kids that it’s OK that Grandma is nasty to Daddy because Grandma doesn’t believe Jews from the part of the world Daddy is from are good enough for you.
Rachel Ann:
It’d be great if the granddaughter forgave her grandmother–assuming that the grandmother hasn’t done and doesn’t do anything else to jeopordize their relationship. Forgiveness is almost always A Good Thing. But I don’t think she “should” forgive in the same way that her grandmother “should” attend the wedding, and I think her reasons for severing their relationship are more justifiable than her grandmother’s. Does that make sense?
Yes, the grandmother is, in a way, giving up her “right” to the relationship. Of course the granddaughter may choose to continue it, but she doesn’t have to.
I find hate unacceptable when it hurts someone else. Disapproving of the way someone lives her life is one thing; letting that disapproval influence your behavior towards her is another. If it’s not possible to act in a way that doesn’t communicate your judgement, then I’m not sure it’s a valuable relationship on either side. (In the end, of course, it’s entirely up to the individuals involved.)
Personally, if my grandmother didn’t attend my (purely hypothetical) wedding just because I wasn’t getting married in a Catholic church (for example), I would have a very hard time maintaining a relationship with her. It’d show that she doesn’t respect my decisions about my life; that she thinks I’m an inferior person because I’m not Catholic; and, yes, that she doesn’t really love me, not unless I live up to her expectations. Why would I want to be friends with someone who treats me like that?
It isn’t the act it is the intention behind the act?
Yes. The granddaughter may never know the reason behind her grandmother’s non-attendance–but that doesn’t make the grandmother’s decision any less wrong. (Similarly, shoplifting a pack of Post-Its without getting caught doesn’t mean it’s OK to steal.)
>>Personally, if my grandmother didn’t attend my (purely hypothetical) wedding just because I wasn’t getting married in a Catholic church (for example), ….
I think, having read Rachel Ann’s blog, the problem of attending a wedding is more difficult for an Orthodox Jew than a Catholic. But, the article Amp linked to is about a Catholic grannie and her decision.
In the case of a Catholic, not attending your daughter’s wedding when you perfectly well can is demonstrating a personal judgement. Attending such a wedding would not be a sin — at least not as far as I am aware. The advice columnist doesn’t suggest that attending might be a sin.
It is clear they are advising grannie to not attend precisely to communicate the fact that grannie cannot accept the choice her granddaughter has made. Specifically: Your courage is also needed to tell her, with equal love, that you cannot accept the choices she has made.
I’m not sure the message is quite the same for Rachel Ann, an Orthodox Jew who also wouldn’t attend a wedding for a wide variety of reasons, including if it were in a mosque or a church, or who likewise can’t sit at a table where someone is eating pork. There seem to be a lot more rules in her faith, and attending to these rules seems important to her. At least, it’s consistent in some sense.
The fact is, the grand daughter in either a Cathlolic or Jewish family, would likely have some clue whether grannie was staying away to purely to express disapproval or for some other reason.
Disapproval tends to show.
I’m a bit concerned about using religion as an excuse to behave in a certain way. Religion doesn’t make one’s principles any more–or less, for that matter–legitimate than they would be if religion weren’t involved.
Also, if one wants to cite a religious “rule” as a reason to behave in a particular way, I think that person must be prepared to follow all the rules of that religion, and strictly. Otherwise, you’re saying that the rules are flexible, except this one, which suggests that there’s something more behind your decision than religious dictates.
I keep mentioning that it’s a matter of what you consider important in your life. And I still believe that relationships trump values, but I understand that that’s in part because I’m not religious, and I don’t have a responsibility to follow any rules that I haven’t completely vetted. (I have to be careful; I may be headed into relativism territory…)
PS. I don’t think any of the above applies to Rachel Ann, who seems dedicated to, and sincere in, her faith.
>Also, if one wants to cite a religious “rule” as a reason to behave in a particular way, I think that person must be prepared to follow all the rules of that religion, and strictly. Otherwise, you’re saying that the rules are flexible, except this one, which suggests that there’s something more behind your decision than religious dictates.
Yes. That’s why, having read Rachel Ann’s blog, I think one might see her point of view. She really does does follow all the dictates. Moreover, she is willing to accept the risks that accompany her decisions.
But, an awful lot of people are picking and choosing…. and the God squad at least seems to be endorsing that idea.
As far as I am aware, it would not be a sin for the Catholic grannie to attend her grand daughters commitment ceremony. So at least in some sense, the reason for not going isn’t religious. As far as I can tell, the god squad is telling grannie to stay away, and then they are saying grand daughter “should” see this as a loving act not rejection. Then, grand daughter “should” be big about it all and embrace grannie after grannie demonstrate her disapproval.
Well.. if they *really* mean what they say, it would at leats be better if they were honest and said:
Grannie, we think you should do this. But, grandaughter will very likely see it as rejecttion no matter how you, or we see it. So, yes, doing this may destroy your relationships. We, the god squad, think it’s worth the risk of destroying your relationship because blah, blah, blah…..
They don’t say that. They imply that after grannie does this, if the relationship falls apart, it’s entirely grand daughters fault. No.. it’s at least partially grannies!
I agree with this:
Grannie, we think you should do this. But, grandaughter will very likely see it as rejecttion no matter how you, or we see it. So, yes, doing this may destroy your relationships. We, the god squad, think it’s worth the risk of destroying your relationship because blah, blah, blah…..
Though I wouldn’t use the word fault, I would use consequence. But to make someone aware of the possible negative consequences of an action? Inform, inform, inform. Incomplete information leads to pain.
btw,
I should have long ago said, I found the Gdsquads response long on words short on actual advice.
The key to preserving your relationship with your granddaughter is a humility that softens your courageous affirmation of the ethics of your faith.
is suppose to me what?
I think grandma may have been looking for more practical advice.
Also, Lucia, the fact that they don’t warn grandma on the possible reprcussions is a MORAL failing on their part, not quite a serious, but in the same sort of vein as failing to tell a patient the possible reprecussions of a particular procedure.
and really, I would appreciate anyone stopping over and answering my post on Hate and Bones of Ethics on my blog. I really do want to hear everyone’s opinions on these topics. I like knowing what makes other’s tick, what is important and valuable and why….How else do we as a world grow?
>>Though I wouldn’t use the word fault, I would use consequence.
Consequence is a better word. By fault, I only meant to imply “a consequence of grannies action”. But, fault does imply some sort of moral idea… and so consequnce is a better word.
And yes, I think their not warning grannie that further alientation might ensue is a moral failing on the God squads part. It is particularly so because grannie specifically worried about that. The fact is, it’s a fairly likely consequence.
I’ve been fascinated reading through this, and plan to give it more thought tonight.
My thoughts keep coming back to the fact that the bride and groom believed 150 people were going to show up but only 30 attended. Which means that either they all RSVPed positively, or the bride and groom made some unfortunate assumptions.
My inclination is to think they RSVPed because as I’m now planning a wedding I know a lot depends on those yeses and nos, and very little is left to chance – like assuming 120 have said yes when they haven’t said anything at all.
Which leads me to believe that 120 people willfully mislead the bride and groom. Surely the couple knew beforehand their family’s prejudice and feelings on their marriage, but it’s obvious from their reaction as ampersand described it that they hadn’t anticipated such a calculated “boycot.”
You can voice your objection and specify your nonattendance be noted as a boycot, but regardless of religious stances and regardless of messages to be sent, on what planet is an orchestrated humiliation and devestation of the bride and groom anything but cruel?
I can’t believe no one had anything to say about Rachel Ann’s comment:
“Those of us who hold to the Bible or the Torah, or the Koran have an easier time explaining and delienating what their value system is: our outlook is based on our belief in G-d. Similarly, those who are conservative but not religious, can also simply state that this is the particular moral code they follow.
But liberals have it tougher; the code is not so distinct (I think) because it does incorporate various idealogies; which is the superior system of beliefs? This is, I think, one of the difficulties that liberals have in getting their message across. Most people like a bit of black and white–shades of grey are more difficult to assess and appreciate.”
So if you’re liberal you are godless? How ignorant. Plenty of people who are religious still make room for shades of grey, because that’s much more in line with what Christianity is supposed to be about. Shades of grey make room for humanity and compassion in ways that black and white don’t. Read Anna Quindlen’s excellent article titled “At the Left Hand of God.” : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4408614/
J, maybe that is because I didn’t say what you think though I can understand why you did do so. My phrasing was poor. My dh is liberal, or at least considers himself liberal and he is an Orthodox Jew as I am. Labeling is a personal thing also.
I suppose a better way of phrasing it would have been; conservatives, and religious people, regardless of their political beliefs…etc.
I was talking about the fact that I think conservatives AND religous people have an escape hatch, lets call it, when stating why they are or are not choosing to do something. There are religious liberals; my dh is one. I use to call myself liberal, but now I think I am, well, unpeggable. Catch me on each issue.
Religious, whether or not they are liberal, have G-d. “Here is why I believe what I believe.” (social) Conservatives have the strict mores; the fact is that a large proportion of them are also religious, but even those who are not can cite these are my standards.
My point is that in the end I can simply point to the law and say, this is why…or if I am confused on an issue I talk to a Rav and then follow through.
But I do think liberals in general and most specifically, those who don’t adhere strictily to a particular set of beliefs, have a more difficult time forming and justifying their actions. That doesn’t mean they don’t believe in a Higher Power, that they are devoid of spirituality, or anything else.
But, and this is what I am trying to understand, what is the authority underwhich one operatess? What is the specific credo (Hestia, if I am understanding her, refers to nurturing relationships. Newwriter is do no harm.
I simply think it harder for those who are non-religious or not strict religious liberals to develop a code of moral standards. That doesn’t mean they have none; I just think it takes more work. There is less specified by any code book.
Anyway, here are three links on my blog that perhaps explain my position better?
HATE
and
what are the bones of your belief system
and this is also related:
striving for perfection
with a tip of the hat to Lucia, for her advice.
I apologise for a long absence, after such a sudden appearance. The news world has been, well, busy. I’ve enjoyed catching up on this thread though. And Rachel Ann, I’ve bookmarked your blog and on my next few moments I’ll check it out.
From here, though, without reading there, I still disagree that we non-religious (but not non-spiritual) and liberal folk don’t have as much difficulty as you seem to think we do developing a moral code, at least speaking for myself. Maybe the difference is that the codes are written in different languages, a different context, couched in different terms. When I say my moral code is do no harm, there’s an enormous thread that runs from that, which for me needs no further explanation.
On the other hand, you’re very right that there’s not a code book per se, which I think is why I prefer it this way. The books are written by men and women, often after along period of oral handing-down, and often in a language I don’t speak or understand, so they’re translated by other men and women who have their own views on the world.
And back to grandma, I still thought she was supposed to make this statement of not going etc etc because what her granddaughter was doing was so wrong wrong wrong. I don’t have any problem with grandma not going, and indeed, it may be best that she does not. But grandma would be walking on very thin ice if she chose this moment, this special ceremony, to (again, I assume) condemn her granddaughter.
Back to the news world. Wish me luck.
You may be right newswriter; it just might be my perception of what is easier…
We would disagree on the Torah being written by men/women, but I think that hardly needs to be said (but I said it anyway.)
I do feel that if grandma makes a BIG statement, as she hands in her regret card, that “I’m not coming because I feel what you are doing is immoral” would be stupid, more than immoral, I would operate more on a “regrets” and say something only if asked.
I’m not sure what I would do if invited to the housewarming party though. If that sounds hypocritical. well, chalk it up to confusion about what to do. I would ask my LOR (local Orthodox Rabbi.)
I simply think it harder for those who are non-religious or not strict religious liberals to develop a code of moral standards.
Do those who are non-religious have to consult their LOR, debate which interpretation of the Law is correct, or argue with other religious folks about interpretations of what is or isn’t moral? Be careful what you call “easier.” :)
Frankly, the so-called “difficulty” of developing a moral code is one of my favorite things about atheism. I like reasoning things out. And I prefer flexibility and context to codes and books. The black-and-white perspective has caused enough trouble that I can’t recommend it.
But, of course, that’s just me.
(I don’t really think we should always honor relationships above everything else; just in this particular case, and weddings in general. I’m more in the “do no harm” camp.)
As a non-religious liberal (and someone who was raised a non-religious liberal), I have found no difficulty whatsoever in developing a moral code.
As far as religious-types having an easier time “explaining” their moral code, I think it’s probably only easier to explain to other religious-types.
For me, these explanations make no sense at all. I’m not trying to be rude, and I realize that it probably has to do with my extremely non-religious upbringing, but for someone to say that they believe something simply because it is written in a book (a book written thousands of years ago) just makes absolutely no sense to me. Similarly, believing something just because someone told you to believe it makes absolutely no sense to me. For me, it’s just mind-boggling.
I was brought up Catholic, and I’m with Bean on this one. I often find religious people explanations of their simple moral code incomprehensible.
Strangely enough, I often also find the explanations very long and involved! So, it doesn’t always seem to me that a religious foundation simplifies anything.
All the easy ones are easy. Murder? It’s not my life to take. The hard calls are always still difficult. Birth control? Stem cell research? Genetic engineering of plants?
Pingback: Daddy, Papa & Me
Pingback: Daddy, Papa & Me
Pingback: Daddy, Papa & Me
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: Willow Tree
Pingback: Willow Tree
Pingback: Willow Tree
Pingback: Willow Tree
Pingback: Pacific Views