I believe there is an "updated" look on marriage witht he new generation. I am somewhere between the "younger" and "older" generation of gay men who want gay marriage to be legal but I view it like a lot of younger gay men/women view it.

Gay marriage use to be just a commitment ceremony. It use to be that there was no legal way what so ever for gays to be marrie dbut now with states legalizing it and people, over all, accepting that gay marriage is going to happen I think a lot of younger gay men/women just want it to happen where before it was only a wish.

As for picking and choosing which aspects of marriage they want I will need to read the article to see what people pick and choose. Honestly though heterosexual couples have been picking and choosing what to honor and not to honor when it comes to marriage so why shouldn't homosexual couples?

These wacky kids are DOOMED!!!!!  I give most of these marriages a Freidman.

 

The joys of gay marriage are nothing when seen alongside the horrors of Gay Divorce!

 

Needless to say the NYT wouldn't think of dealing with gay couples in the less than upper-middle income bracket.

How come in all the pictures, the guys look well, so stereotypically gay? Surely they could have had at least one that looked a bit less contrived.

Bears?

 

Leather?

 

Cecil Beaton?

Er, well that would be even more stereotypical. So I don't get your point.

"Sullivan is a disingenuous lunatic with a disastrous record as a pundit during the Clinton and Bush years ..."

Huh? Do you provide any substantiation or explanation for that sweeping denunciation anywhere in your blog or other writings? Or are you being sarcastic? I couldn't tell.

I thought the pictures were designed to appear "dated" in a 1950's Saturday Evening Post kind of way. But I agree that more up-to-date images of a couple of cute young bears (I don't see depiction of bears as necessarily being stereotypical) or an interracial college couple or something other than GWASPs in their post-Ivy League careers would have been more interesting and relevant.

Mark

P.S. And that first image looks like a father and son ... or a May-December romance, not a "young couple."

--
Mark D. Worthen, Psy.D.
Selective Discrimination Blog

 

 

 

http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/library/l_sullivans_travails.html

That article was really cute, and I like how the writer showed the various views, from rather traditional to more modern.
I live in France, and we have no chance of being able to marry as long as a right-wing government is in place. If (when!) it changes, I'm sure we'll get marriage, and yes, I'll be happy to marry my partner, with whom I'm already 'pacsé' (our version of a civil union). 

François
---------------
http://gaycomicslist.free.fr

What an enjoyable read - the N.Y.Times article made me smile and laugh so much. Thanks for the great treat after a long day at work.

is a shade older than the other couples photographed for the issue. And oddly, the cover couple's profile is buried deep within the article -- and accounts for only two paragraphs out of 25,000 words. (Didn't the story behind these cuties' wedding -- and their subsequent four-plus years of marriage --fit with the author's shiny-happy thesis?)

Anyway, the story says the cover couple met when they were both 25 and got married at 29, on the first day gay marriage was legal in Massachusetts (Nov 2003). So they're 34 or 35 now.  I like doing age math.

All the photos, I thought, were fun. I got the detached, ironic feeling that I have looking at old issues of Better Homes & Gardens or watching the Dick Van Dyke show. Which I don't know was the intended reaction, but.... 

The story, however, was a loosely strung series of profiles about five or six couples (including the two-paragraph cover couple) and what they did related to getting engaged and then planning and executing their weddings in Massachusetts. (Apparently none of the couples had any financial issues related to PAYING for their weddings. Hmmm.)

There were very few statistics or study findings. Granted full-fledged, governmentally recognized same-sex marriage has only been possible for a few years and in a few states, but some quality demographic work and numbers crunching -- on marriage and divorce rates, income levels, ages, ethnicities, regionality, and so -- really needed to be part of the article. 

For me, the piece came off as a few charming-enough stories of 10 or so cute successful wealthy healthy well-educated young white gay guys who have chosen to marry other cute successful wealthy healthy well-educated young white gay guys. 

And from that we're supposed to see a major lifestyle trend? Hmmmm, again.

Where was the talk about actually being married? -- You know, the hard work of waking up every day and committing to make a life with someone else? Marriage is a marathon of transcendence; a wedding is just an expensive party. The piece focused on the party a lot, the marathon not so much.

Okay, the story did include a few interesting comments from one of the couples about monogamy/non-monogamy and creating unique relationship agreements. The author suggests that gay couples may be more readily able to have these difficult conversations because our relationsips, indeed our lives, require high levels of self-examination and self-definition. THAT was an interesting notion -- and one that could/should have been explored further.

Not that that means anything. . .

Federal Civil Unions=Marriage Equality; State Same-sex Marriage Does Not.
There is a myth that marriage has more rights than civil unions. That myth is born from the fact that civil unions have only been passed by states which have no power to grant the 1138 federal benefits of marriage. However, a federal civil union policy would. Senators Clinton & Obama support a federal civil unions policy. 48 million votes cast in 29 states, 32 million against same sex marriage, we lost 2 to 1. According to Jennifer SookneMizell of Marriage Equality USA, “Actually, we get more benefits in California in certain areas with domestic partnerships than the same gendered marrieds(sic) in Massachusetts get.” 45 states have laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. The choice is clear, federal civil unions are achievable, federal same-sex marriage is not. Federal Civil Unions=Marriage Equality

once again, my ignorance with anything marriage related came into play while reading this article.....because i had NO idea that D.C. allowed domestic partnerships. God, living here, you'd think i already know that....

 

The main motivations for getting married are to raise children or protect property, (including your body.) So, is it any wonder that most of the married men are financially successful.

I've always been unabashed about my monogamous nature. I mean I've tried open relationships and 3-ways, it's just not that interesting to me. Maybe I'm flawed, but I was like that in my twentys. So, marriage is appealing to me or at least doesn't make me want to scream "Sell outs! Assimilationists!." like Brent suggests.

I think the perception is that people want to hang onto the idea of the Politics of Sex, or Sex as a political statement. The gay politics of old have been discussed here before. What we are seeing now, and what I advocated 20 years ago, is the Politics of Love, or Love as a political statement.

I didn't think the author was leading us astray or pretending he was making a comprehensive look at gay male relationships. He met some individuals, and asked questions and presented what he found in a very delightful and humorous way. I don't know the last time I've enjoyed reading an article as much.

He makes an important point about the retarded sexual adolescence of gay men in my generation. Noting that since people are coming out earlier they're and are "able to experience their gay adolescence. That, in turn, has made them more likely to feel normal. Many young gay men don’t see themselves as all that different from their heterosexual peers." There was talk earlier this week on these pages about the gay generational divide, which this points too.

Activists in my generation worked to create a more liberal and open society where boys could bring their boyfriend to the prom. How could we know what that world would be like? My only fear is that comparing a gay marriage to a hetro-marriage, or trying to justify it as "being the same thing" will drive a wedge between diverse groups in the gay community. That we might lose site of a common goal. That would be a loss for everyone.

But that doesn't mean we should ignore the similarities. As George, the gay divorcee, points out the pitfall of using marriage to confer recognition of your love. "... in a million other ways we were constantly reminded that our relationship wasn’t equal to a straight relationship, even though we were legally married... Whether it was doing our federal taxes, or hearing that most states weren’t going to recognize our marriage, or just not being able to walk down the street and hold hands without getting snickers or comments. Like many gay couples, I think we brought unresolved shame and deep-rooted feelings of unworthiness into the relationship. You don’t even realize it’s there sometimes, but it definitely affected us." In that way, he seemed like the petulant 1950's teenager who elopes with the Leader of The Pack, to prove her love.


I liked the photographs. Most had a Home and Gardens circa 1954 feel, but also reminded me of Pierre et Gilles with the use of floral framing.  And I don't care if anyone thinks they look stereotypical, or what ever, could Benjamin and Joshua be any cuter?
.

Nukely  -  Great post!  I endorse everything you say.  As you recall I was one of those involved in the earlier generational discussion.  The big generational difference I see, that you described yourself, is the degree to which young gays don't feel different from their peers.  I have a good friend in his 20s, a former co-worker, who has NEVER felt out of step with his peers.  He was a leader in his fraternity at college, and maintains close ties to his brothers there.  He's totally out at work and to all family and friends.  The same is true of his boyfriend.  Neither carries any unresolved shame at all.  But that doesn't mean he lacks awareness of the "struggle".  He joined HRC immediately upon moving here, and has always been totally abreast of everything going on.  He just doesn't feel at all separate, though.  Being gay is to him just another attribute, like his height or his hair color or his various personality traits.

Like you, I hope the marriage issue doesn't drive any wedges in our community, and I don't think it should.  (Though that doesn't mean it can't or won't.)  My view is that there is no monolithic gay path, and we should all live and let live.  For those that value marriage, get married if and where you can, and be happy.  For those that don't value it, just ignore it, and respect the different opinions of those that think differently.