Alarm! Designated Solemnizing in Peril!

Lackaday, my blogger name is massmarrier and I've been at the designated solemnization biz since July 2004. Today though, the harsh news is that the long-standing MA means of plain folk performing marriages is on hold.

Allegedly having friends and relatives do the honors at the ceremony might start again next month. Given a ponderous bureaucracy and a new governor, who's to say for sure?

You can catch my various early posts from the thrilling yester-decade from the archives, like here and here and here. Also the image is of the old-style wax seal from my first solemnization. Not only is the new version just a peel-off seal embossed with a squeeze, but the application process is pretty much online (except for providing a character-reference letter).

The Globe piece on the hiatus for the process cites failure by success. The designations have become more popular. Even so, they are talking 14 a day. Maybe the governor and secretary of the commonwealth should go to a fast-food joint or the RMV to see how to process.

I have performed five marriages as a designated solemnizer and one as a Universal Life Monastery minister. I prefer the theater and elegance of petitioning the governor. In my heart of hearts, I'm sure the governor per se does not approve anything, that someone on the staff eyeballs the application to get a sense you're not trying to pull an immigration or other scam, and then a functionary in the secretary of the commonwealth's office records and mails out the form. Still, it's the idea.

By the bye, CA copied us a few years ago and improved the process. You can go to a local registrar for approval, do not have to wait the nominal three weeks (I never waited more than 10 days), and can perform multiple marriages per calendar year. We are supposedly limited to one per year, although they make an exception for me once.

In short, if we can't handle 14 of these a day, we need to tweak our process and maybe our law. We can return the favor to CA who copied our law and copy their (new, improved) version.

Truly, performing the marriage friends and in my case, a son, is more meaningful than a hired gun JP.

Mail-order rights to rites

Till now, I avoided the Universal Life Church, a.k.a. The Monastery. Any hippie or hipster leanings I've had stopped short of what some deride as mail-order ordination.

Instead I hiked uphill with my respect and affection for marriage. The five I have performed — solemnized in nuptial lingo — started with petitioning the governor here. That is the state law and one of the inspirations for this blog, along with promoting marriage equality. Yet the process sounds a bit grander than its reality.

One of my early posts here over a decade ago was on what was then the physical process of earning the wax seal on the one-day certificate of solemnization. Alas, over the years and the five marriages, the official process of getting the right to sign a couple's license has lost much of its theater.

Even the stodgy secretary of the commonwealth's office uses technology to simplify, streamline, and in the process demystify getting the paper. You can apply online and be pretty set in a week.

I confess that I enjoyed the formality of petitioning the governor. In reality, that surely fell and falls to some petty functionary in the secretary of the commonwealth's office. Now that would lack drama in the telling.

On the other hand, three years ago, a chum from my professional association asked if I would solemnize his daughter's wedding when she and her beau were on a prolonged visit during their break from their French college. Of course I would, although that would run afoul of our general law Chapter 207 §39. That law limits one-day solemnizations to one per calendar year.

I filled out the application to the governor's office and in my cover letter noted that this would be second marriage that year. Much to my surprise I got a call from Gov. Deval Patrick's top aide, saying that would be fine.

Note that California has done this right. For the longest time, Massachusetts was alone in this splendid method of letting family and friends conduct marriages for loved ones. When California was looking at pending passage of marriage equality, it passed but better legislation. There, you can get the privilege much as you would a marriage license, no high ranking officials involved at all. Plus, you can perform as many as you'd like.We need to catch up with the leapfroggers.

Recently when the sister of a family friend asked via that friend if I'd perform her wedding, I agreed. Then I considered the logistics. There wasn't much time. More important, they knew place but were unsure of the date. The one-day law requires exact details of the couple, the city of marriage ceremony and the date. If anything changes, you need to re-apply.

That sent me to the Monastery. I wanted the flexibility that comes with just being able to sign the license after the ceremony. Lackaday, the residual theater goes away here.

I did apply and got my credentials of ministry quickly. However, while in many states, that's all you need, Massachusetts adds a layer.  While it is free to do you, to perform marriages here, you must get on an approved list. That includes:

• Being a Massachusetts resident
• Providing a copy of ordination papers
• Sending an original letter of good standing in the church that ordained you

That took a few extra days to assemble the paperwork. It also highlighted one of The Monastery's clever funding wrinkles. The packets of documents with ordination do no include a letter of good standing. In states that require one to have on file, it requires another order ($18 more, plus $18.50 shipping, in a #10 envelope).

There is an Emergency Minister's Package ($64.99, plus shipping) that includes the letter. You would suppose that more expensive and grander sounding packages would have it all, but they do not. To their credit, The Monastery does have some packages for states with convoluted laws, like California, NYC, NY state same-sex, and Nevada extras.

The key point is that you should work several angles if you go with the Monastery. Find out from the secretary of state where you might perform marriages before getting ordained this way. Then you can safe effort, time and money returning to order the surprise essentials.

Note too that after submitting everything to get on the marriage list here, I found they don't notify you. You need to call them and make sure they got the paperwork and certified you an officiant.

On the other hand, if you are in Massachusetts and expect to perform a single marriage, go with petitioning the governor. It's only $25 pus a stamp, and comes with the cachet of explaining how you, a non-minister/not-JP got to do that.

I would note to anyone deriding ULC/Monastery ordination, it's a several steps down from a divinity school degree, plus the fellowship process many churches require. However, it is a solid step up from the self-ordaining crowd. I know people who call themselves ministers, saying they got a personal call from God, and others who give themselves ecclesiastical titles (Bishop is big in one father/son mega-church around here). It's made-up stuff and America is just one country with a long history of ministry-because-I-say-so.

For the pending wedding, I met with the couple. As with each of the previous weddings, I planned, customized and produced the ceremony and vows. Unlike the many weddings I've attended, mine are what suits and what will be memorable to the couple and attendants.

I suspect ministers, justices of the peace and others who conduct weddings get as tired of the cant as the guests do. When my eldest son married, I dickered with him and my future daughter-in-law considerably on wording. They really only knew what they didn't wants (like nothing from the Bible). In the end, I drafted my own concept, figuring that was the next round of negotiation. Mirabile dictu! They were pleased and we went with it.

At their reception, a minister and a JP asked for copies of the ceremony. They were tired of delivering the same repeatedly. As with so much of life, creativity trumps cliché.

I'm likely to report here on how this wedding goes next weekend. While I'll miss turning in the designation of solemnization with the signed license, they'll be just as married.

Dutch Boys 12 Years On

In the weekend Financial Times, Simon Kuper writes about what same-sex marriage has meant for his native Netherlands. Among his conclusions:

• "(I)t doesn't change much."
• Following legalization in 2001, political squabbles turned to other matters.
• Despite crazy claims otherwise, it does not affect straight marriages.
• SSM does "slap the churches in the face," in the sense they have the scramble to show their relevance.
• Stereotypical, traditional gay scenes are disappearing as more homosexuals integrate in the larger community.

French To Join SSM Parade

With the opposition reduced to petty cleverness (as in 4,999 amendments to clog the works), the French National Assembly voted 329 to 299 for same-sex marriage and adoption by gay couples. The Senate takes it up in two months and seems certain to make it law. President Francois Hollande supports and drove the move.

Good coverage at WaPo in the recap, with a bonus column speculating on what finally tipped France into the gang of nearby Roman Catholic-heavy countries who already legalized marriage equality.

Joyeuse St. Valentin.

While France led much of the world in decriminalizing homosexuality (1791, a trail of the Revolution), it's taken its time with this. Religiously and culturally similar Spain and Portugal, among others, have SSM already.

Now despite government support up and down, public opinion approval, and law almost completed, the opposition acts like that here. There's promise of both protests and court battles. Even in a country noted for sexual and marital liberty, the nasty meddlers want to be in charge of other folk's private matters.

Good on Gomer

Were my maternal grandmother alive, would she rejoice in Jim Nabors, a.k.a. Gomer Pyle, getting married...to his love of 38 years, his new husband?

Out to his friends and colleagues, but no one else, the 82-year-old actor figured it was time, while he had time. He and partner Stan Cadwallader flew from their Hawaii home to Seattle, where such doings are legal.

Pic note: Public domain from Marine Corps.

Licit or not, my grandmother 1) adored Nabors on The Andy Griffith Show and other TV, particularly where he'd sing, and 2) was befuddled by and hostile to homosexuality. She was born at the very start of the 20th Century and lived her whole life in the hills of central Maryland and the Eastern panhandle of West Virginia.

Mable didn't consider herself a hick. After all, they lived in Romney, the Hampshire County seat, with a metropolitan area population of over 2,000. The hicks and ridge runners came from the real hills to downtown Romney with its several restaurants, department store, groceries, and menswear shop (run by the mayor, head of the only Jewish family in the county).

Yet the wild, the citified, and sexually remarkable were not an admitted part of her world. Yet, it turns out, gays were about. A very familiar relative by marriage was one, several family members I learned had bi relationships, and my best friend in the town where I summered and spent my holidays my whole childhood and youth was gay. Had she known things I did, she likely would have denied it each and all.

One of her daughters, my mother, was more candid but still befuddled. Two of my longest-term friends are gay men. She knew them both, one from my sandbox days and one from college on. They would visit her on swings through the Southwest, with their partners. She and they all enjoyed their meals and conversations for many years. She would tell me how much she loved the four of them, but always add that she just didn't understand homosexuality.

She didn't live long enough for the full circle. I have solemnized both couples' marriages.; I suppose she would have said she didn't understand same-sex marriage either.

Her own mother though was never in a state of mind to discuss homosexuality. She read her Bible and The Upper Room daily as well as attending and serving in church. Without the obnoxious aspects, she was a fundy, and I have no doubt she knew same-sex love to be sinful.

Gaydar jokes aside, Nabors was fairly plainly gay at least to us boomers. That was fine enough. What I had trouble with was what my grandmother adored, his drama-queen singing. He favored lugubrious ballads, huge, round-mouthed tones and virtually no feeling involved.

Yet, every week, she'd invariably say if Gomer was on with Andy, "I hope he sings." Also, when the Cumberland Times or TV Guide would list him as a guest on some other program, she was elated because it invariably meant he'd do a number or two. She loved the songs even if she would have hated the sin.

She'd be well over 100 now. I have to wonder whether she would have grown at all with the times. Surely she never would have left Romney. What would it have meant to her to know I'd performed several gay weddings, of people she knew and liked? What would the growing national support of SSM meant to her? Could she have talked about it with me?

Grandmother Mable taught several generations to think for ourselves, to speak up at every lunch and dinner on every subject, to be well read and informed. She had her huge blind spots. I have to wonder whether she would have shifted over the decades. In particular, Jim Nabors was a hero of hers. wouldn't that be something fine?

My blessings fall on Jim and Stan, newlyweds.

Yes-vember for Gay Marrigage

OK, kiddies, voters in four states get the right to reverse the elections of fear and confusion about marriage equality. In three states, they can reinforce same-sex marriage (Maine, Washington and Maryland) and in another (Minnesota) they can tell those who want to constitutionally ban it to get lost.

This AP piece has a fine recap of these states' particulars.

One of the few facts the anti-equality folk like the National Organization for Marriage use is that all the states that have put SSM to popular vote have rejected it. That's 32 of 32.

Of course, the NOM sorts do not mention that nearly all of these were in the scare-mongering period just before and after Vermont legalized civil unions and Massachusetts SSM. Given dishonest, dishonorable bluster about the dreadful certain outcomes of letting homosexuals also marry, voter confusion was certainly understandable.

It isn't any more.

Here in New England and the larger Northeast, voters have seen years of only benefits from a slight expansion of marriage. Coupled with single and paired folk coming out on porches, at work and elsewhere, they virtually all know homosexuals hindered, harmed and hampered by denying them the option of marriage. They see there is no redefinition, to use the MA Family Institutes's most common lie, of marriage. They have learned that there has been only societal good and the type of respect and compassion that the major religions preach.

Come November 7th, it's almost certain that the anti-gay/anti-SSM will reframe their we-always-win game. They have built on this mythology despite legalization of marriage equality by legislative and judicial action. All they have left is plebiscites.

We have a dreadful history of denying shared civil rights — to women, African American, Asians and other. We unquestionably share the human failing of being willing to punish those we think of as not like us. Honestly, most of us know better. Fortunately, more and more public speakers make it plain that we should never vote on civil rights.

So, say the count on November 7th is 32 to 4 or 34 to 2, feel the hard breeze from the spin by the Dark Side. Even so, know that this shameful pattern is about to reverse.

Personal and Political in My Living Room

I solemnized my fifth marriage yesterday. Help me, Jesus (or pick your own), I love this. As I age, the tenderness, emotion and pleasure at such events only increases.

Yesterday's marriage was of a childhood friend, a sandbox buddy, and his long-time partner. In many ways, that's not at all remarkable, even as they are two men. After all, that's normal and legal in a marriage-equality state.

From another angle, the grooms live in Florida. They returned this afternoon and when they deplane their state won't recognize their marriage. They'll be dependent on the whims and largess of employers for the rights and privileges all we other married sorts simply expect and get.

Monday, I'll file their license with my solemnization certificate in Boston's City Hall. I'll get and mail them an official copy of their proof of marriage. I also have made copies of the marriage license and certificate, which disappear into the city file forever. They'll get a package of the trappings and tracings.

Neither Charles nor Karl is all that political. Of course, as educated adults as well as gay men and as baby boomers who grew up hearing about equal rights and fairness, they are aware of the irrational disparities. Their state is one of many along with our shared federal government that openly discriminates by sexual orientation in matters such as marriage with related benefits or lack thereof.

Yesterday's wedding and related party had little emphasis on politics. As the officiant, I even stifled myself. After all, Charles and I go back to the sandbox in a tiny town in West Virginia. This was his and Karl's day.

In corners of the living and dining rooms, John Hosty-Grinnell, the equality activist, and I did discuss the Dark Side (like Mass Family Institute), and likely advances assuming an Obama reelection. However, he and his husband Ray were gracious enough to join me in being celebrants and not polemicists.

Charles and Karl were here for the week. Among the museums, ferries, bars and T trips, we did muse on such as where they'd be legally married afterward. Well, there's Iowa, the other states and D.C. that have SSM, plus Rhode Island that has comity with our marriages. There are some European countries.

Grumble...grunt...lesbians and gay men are not forcing anything on any jurisdiction. However, it seems grossly unfair that a legal Massachusetts marriage has no standing in Florida or there or there or there.

I think of the five marriages I've officiated:

• Straight couple, she a long-term friend
• Gay couple, one back to college days
• Eldest son and his fiancée
• Friend's 20-something daughter and her beau
• Charles and Karl

I found these very moving, each in its own way. I like to say that my marriages last. In fact, I told the young couple last December that I expected them to make their union a good one. I don't see why anyone would think much less act on the idea that a same-sex marriage is any less worthy.

I held in my politics yesterday. It was a splendid moment not made for rants or self-righteousness. Even knowing that as a moderately socially retarded nation, we are headed inexorably toward marriage equality, I remain impatient.

Why should a couple who has lived together in effect as married for decades be denied the recognition? Who do we tweak a nation where ordinary folk as well as celebrities act badly in relationships while such a devoted couple do not get equal rights? These men are faithful, loving spouses, We recognize that allow that in Massachusetts. Get with the program, America!

I'm quick to admit marriage is not right for many. Lord knows, many pols, but particularly right wingers, are sluts, ill suited for such essentials as fidelity. Yet, I think the five I've performed as well as my own are. I know the young couple the least well, but even they seems already quite devoted.

The guests in the living room yesterday, from the pair of 18 year olds through the boomers had a grand time in a very normal and happy ceremony. Here were two men who were deeply in love as they have been for decades. What could possibly be wrong with that?

NOM NOM PAC People

Ah, Mainers. So many have their hearts and heads in good and proper places. There's a great chance that marriage equality will be restored in the November election.

Yet, the Dark Side, epitomized by NOM, National Organization for Marriage, will likely flood the state with ads, paid out-of-state folk and more to defeat it. They've promised/threatened another $2million to again harm, hinder and hamper gay couples there.

Today's Boston Globe carries a heartening recap of the campaign. The thrust is that so far, Equality Maine's related Mainers United for Marriage has far outraised the anti-same-sex marriage forces...locally.

First, I'm glad to see that the pro-equality forces are taking back the reality. For decades, the anti-gay/anti-marriage/anti-adoption/anti-family forces with names like NOM's have pretended to be the opposite of what they are. This is no time to iterate their many lies; this blog among other media has plenty of that.

Second, I have to wonder whether NOM is willing to risk losing the money and bragging rights in the likely event that Mainers will restore marriage equality. Up there, voters have a cantankerous history of doing the most socially conservative thing, even more than once, before coming down on the human and humane side. They certainly did that with gay rights regulations.

The anti-equality crowd is like so many prom queens and princesses. They live in past, remembered glories. In this case, the overwhelming record from 2004 when states looked at civil unions, then SSM, in New England, and rushed to pass laws and amendments prohibiting equality.

Let's assume NOM openly goes after the Maine vote and loses. Sure the money will hurt at a time when fewer Americans want to spend on such nastiness and are blasé about same-sex marriage or support it. Such orgs are on the wrong end of the funnel.

More important though, pro-equality forces have public perception and experience backing them. The great gay panic of 2004 has proven to be lunacy. There's no harm and only good that comes from marriage equality. More and more homosexual couples are making themselves known, and all but the most emotionally driven types see their ordinariness as well as a devotion to marriage often lacking in different-sexed couples and spouses.

I want Maine to fulfill its heritage of basic goodness in November. I won't wish pro-equality forces having to fight extra millions in negative ads and hundreds of hired mouths on the streets. Yet, there would be a particular sweetness to the NOM forces trying hard and falling hard.