Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff Mom Never told You from how stupp
Speaker 1: works dot com. Hello, and welcome to the podcast. I'm
Speaker 1: Kristen and I'm Caroline. And a while back we talked
Speaker 1: about the evolution of same sex marriage in the US.
Speaker 1: So far, seventeen states as of the recording of this
Speaker 1: podcast have legalized same sex marriage. But we want to
Speaker 1: continue highlighting this progress and celebrating it by talking this
Speaker 1: time around about gay weddings. Yeah, because gay weddings in
Speaker 1: and of themselves, the fact that they even exist is
Speaker 1: a huge milestone. It's a huge deal. But also, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just it's wedding season, you guys. It's June, not
Speaker 1: when people get married. It's spring. Things are blooming. Love
Speaker 1: is in the air. Love of all kinds, Love of
Speaker 1: all kinds. So let's first do a quick rundown on
Speaker 1: the solution of same sex marriage legally speaking, in the
Speaker 1: US and around the world. That's really started. The dominos
Speaker 1: really began to fall in December two thousand and ten,
Speaker 1: when the US Congress repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell after
Speaker 1: a Pentagon report concluded but surprise, surprise, gay service members
Speaker 1: hold no threat to the Armed forces, abilities or effectiveness right,
Speaker 1: and on the heels of that, well, I don't know
Speaker 1: if you can say it's on the heels of considering.
Speaker 1: It was three years later, but in June, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court struck down the Defensive Marriage Act, or DOMA, and
Speaker 1: they ruled in Windsor versus the United States that section
Speaker 1: three of DOMA, which refresher with the n law that
Speaker 1: denied legally married same sex couples the protections and responsibilities
Speaker 1: of marriage, was on constitutional In the same breath, Essentially,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court also stuck a stick of dynamite in
Speaker 1: Proposition eight, basically restoring the rights of gay people in
Speaker 1: California to marry. And so that sort of open the floodgates.
Speaker 1: People started looking around each other going like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we should probably, you know, give people civil rights. So,
Speaker 1: as Kristen said, seventeen states as of this recording have
Speaker 1: legalized gay marriage, led by Massachusetts in two thousand four.
Speaker 1: But if we look worldwide, the Netherlands was at the
Speaker 1: forefront back in two thousand one, and sixteen countries now
Speaker 1: allow same sex couples to marry nationwide, while two others,
Speaker 1: including the US and Mexico, have just regional provisions allowing it.
Speaker 1: And so while in the United States, clearly there's still
Speaker 1: a lot of progress to be made because this is
Speaker 1: now a state by state battle, but it does seem
Speaker 1: that the chips are falling at an accelerated pace. And
Speaker 1: I suspect that gay marriage is going to be the
Speaker 1: law of the land in five years. Calling an idealist,
Speaker 1: but I honestly believe that this is a change that
Speaker 1: is legitimately sweeping the nation. Right. Well, I mean if
Speaker 1: you just think about people in our generation and younger especially,
Speaker 1: I mean, really nobody thinks that gay marriage is a
Speaker 1: huge deal that will harm the marriages of other people.
Speaker 1: I mean, statistically speaking, our generation and younger is like,
Speaker 1: let and live and let live. Let people get married,
Speaker 1: and you know what comes with getting married. Kristen Weddings,
Speaker 1: Planning a wedding, I personally would find planning a wedding overwhelming,
Speaker 1: but I have always had the right built in to
Speaker 1: have a wedding. Yeah, and to you know, almost have
Speaker 1: the privilege of being annoyed with the idea of like
Speaker 1: a wedding, Am I going to have to do that
Speaker 1: one day? Yeah? This is a this is a new
Speaker 1: territory though for same sex couples who are getting married.
Speaker 1: And this episode is a bit of an intersection between
Speaker 1: other topics that we've talked about before surrounding weddings, marriage,
Speaker 1: same sex, civil rights, things like that, and so there
Speaker 1: will be some repeat information, but it's just been interesting
Speaker 1: to see how gay weddings are being treated and publicized
Speaker 1: as both something old and something new right and in
Speaker 1: a stroke of incredible timing, the not which is actually
Speaker 1: part of what Slate writer Katherine Goldstein in June called
Speaker 1: the wedding industrial complex. They started us off with a
Speaker 1: really kind of thorough, very long Q and A type
Speaker 1: of thing that was basically a how to addition for
Speaker 1: gay and lesbian couples. It was essentially the guts. The
Speaker 1: guts were the same of each issue, but there was
Speaker 1: one geared towards gay grooms and one geared towards lesbian brides,
Speaker 1: and um, there were thirty five q and a's in there,
Speaker 1: like everything from you know, should I give an engagement ring?
Speaker 1: To who should we invite? And Katherine Goldstein was talking
Speaker 1: about how like, yes, there were some really like critical,
Speaker 1: well good hard hitting questions and answers in there, but
Speaker 1: really this is just part of the same old junk that,
Speaker 1: like straight couples have had to deal with forever. Right.
Speaker 1: I remember when this happened. I was listening to one
Speaker 1: of my favorite podcasts, Throwing Shade, and the gay host
Speaker 1: Brian Sofie just ripped into this not his and hers
Speaker 1: gay wedding special basically because he found it insulting that
Speaker 1: it was, you know, these questions about how do we
Speaker 1: have a wedding if we are two men instead of
Speaker 1: a man and a woman. And I think that the
Speaker 1: Knots intentions were pretty pure, aside from, you know, the
Speaker 1: capitalistic things of oh well, if you're looking for his
Speaker 1: and his cake topper as well, you can go to
Speaker 1: one of our sponsors. But uh, but there were some
Speaker 1: legitimate questions in that Q and A in terms of, okay,
Speaker 1: well do we invite family members who have not been
Speaker 1: accepting of our union, things like that, But then also
Speaker 1: apparently lots of suggestions of drag queen entertainment, to which
Speaker 1: Brian Sofie again raised his eyebrow. Well, also, the first
Speaker 1: dance song suggestions were questionable. Lots of Whitney Houston, right, yeah,
Speaker 1: side note, I love Whitney Houston. But first dance. I
Speaker 1: don't know, but anyway, so now, I mean, I think
Speaker 1: it's great that we do have a ton of how
Speaker 1: to guides etiquette advice. There's even uh this this group
Speaker 1: called the Gay Wedding Institute that's been around for several
Speaker 1: years to sort of advise both actual same sex couples
Speaker 1: but also to sort of advise the media and vendors
Speaker 1: themselves on how to handle same sex weddings and civil
Speaker 1: unions and that kind of stuff. And you know, say
Speaker 1: what you will about the advice being sappy, crap or whatever,
Speaker 1: but like the fact that it's out there, I think
Speaker 1: is so wonderful. The fact that people are getting the
Speaker 1: same kind of treatment as far as like, hey, you
Speaker 1: want advice on having an awesome wedding, Well here here's
Speaker 1: some advice. Here's a way to spend a lot of
Speaker 1: money one in one day. Um but there, but there
Speaker 1: are some The thing that jumps out over and over
Speaker 1: again in media coverage of gay weddings is this idea
Speaker 1: that well, they are basically taking this age old institution
Speaker 1: and reinvigorating it with their own traditions, because unlike you
Speaker 1: and I to assist gender heterosexual women who will be
Speaker 1: faced with questions of, well, are we that cool with
Speaker 1: a guy proposing? Do we really want a diamond? Are
Speaker 1: we going to take his name? All of those questions
Speaker 1: that come up over and over again. Whereas when you
Speaker 1: have two women are two men, it's more of a
Speaker 1: blank slate issue. And so there was a two thousand
Speaker 1: thirteen survey conducted by the not and the Advocate and
Speaker 1: they pulled LGBT and straight Americans to compare and contrast
Speaker 1: how we do our weddings, and there were some differences
Speaker 1: that popped out, starting with popping the question yeah. So
Speaker 1: they asked about, you know, whether your proposal was traditional
Speaker 1: along the lines of, you know, getting down on one knee,
Speaker 1: pulling out the ring in the little velveteen box, and
Speaker 1: same sex couples reported that they were less likely to
Speaker 1: have had a formal proposal fifty eight percent compared with
Speaker 1: of opposite sex couples who had a traditional one. And
Speaker 1: when it comes to, you know, the asking for his
Speaker 1: or her hand in marriage, you know, we think of
Speaker 1: that as a very common thing that a groom to
Speaker 1: be would do, asking his future wife's father for permission
Speaker 1: to marry her. Only nineteen percent of same sex couples
Speaker 1: said that they approached the parents of their spouse to be,
Speaker 1: whereas sixty of straight couples said that they did that. Now,
Speaker 1: when it comes to actually planning the wedding, the survey
Speaker 1: also found that of same sex couples evenly split the
Speaker 1: planning duties, compared to just nine of straight couples, to
Speaker 1: which I say, hey, who's that pulling their weight around here?
Speaker 1: Straight couples, what's going on? Well, I would imagine in
Speaker 1: both gay and straight couples all over the place, there
Speaker 1: are plenty of people who are in couples being like
Speaker 1: you get out of here. Yeah, I'm taking this over.
Speaker 1: Someone probably does end up being more of the event manager.
Speaker 1: And let me just tell you, Caroline that if that
Speaker 1: day ever comes for me, oh I hope it's him,
Speaker 1: I do not want to be me well, but I
Speaker 1: guess it depends. And I mean not to get off
Speaker 1: on a tangent, but you know, gay or straight, if
Speaker 1: you're just planning on having a big party, I'd much
Speaker 1: rather have just have like a huge party rather than
Speaker 1: plan some big formal affair. But then I guess, regardless,
Speaker 1: you've got to worry about the venue. But anyway, but anyway, Well,
Speaker 1: let's just plan our own perfect wedding, Caroline. And when
Speaker 1: it comes to putting the bill, six percent of gay
Speaker 1: couples reported paying for their own weddings versus of opposite
Speaker 1: sex couples, and that might be why on average, gay
Speaker 1: weddings usually cost quite a bit less. The average cost
Speaker 1: of a straight wedding in the United States right now
Speaker 1: is twenty seven thousand tears. What that one buys you,
Speaker 1: it's probably a lot of headache medicine to get through
Speaker 1: the fact that you're spending. However, and this was I
Speaker 1: think this is New York specific, but in New York
Speaker 1: at least same sex couples spend an average nine thousand,
Speaker 1: thirty nine dollars on their weddings. So it could be
Speaker 1: partially due to the fact that, hey, if they are
Speaker 1: responsible for paying for this whole shin dig, then maybe
Speaker 1: they're mining their money a little bit differently and instead
Speaker 1: of if it's a parent or somebody else footing the bill. Yeah, well, um,
Speaker 1: as far as you know, whether it's a big fancy
Speaker 1: affair or not. Of same sex couples versus six of
Speaker 1: straight couples reported that their nuptials were cash just casual
Speaker 1: get together and along those same lines. So I mean
Speaker 1: you mentioned whether or not parents are footing the bill
Speaker 1: for the wedding, whether or not someone is asking parents
Speaker 1: permission to pop a question. Gay couples are also less
Speaker 1: likely to be escorted down the aisle by a family
Speaker 1: member or incorporate religious vows. So it really does seem
Speaker 1: like in a lot of different ways, they are making
Speaker 1: this tradition their own. They're not saying, well, we have
Speaker 1: to do things like all these brilliant straight people have
Speaker 1: been doing it for forever. Right, Yeah, they are I
Speaker 1: mean following their own path, creating their own path, and
Speaker 1: not feeling that pressure that so many straight couples I
Speaker 1: assume uh feel to create a wedding that just like
Speaker 1: their sister had or just like their mother had. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think there is a lot. There's so much baggage
Speaker 1: that goes on with the appropriate in quotes in the
Speaker 1: same way that I had brilliant straight people in quotes
Speaker 1: planning of a wedding up to this issue of changing
Speaker 1: one's last name. Right, six that of same sex couples
Speaker 1: polled said that they kept their distinct last names, versus
Speaker 1: seventy of straight brides who took their husbands. And honestly,
Speaker 1: I would have thought the percentage for straight couples would
Speaker 1: have been higher, that more women would have been taking
Speaker 1: their husband's name. But yeah, I mean I think that
Speaker 1: more women are keeping their name these days, but yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm surprised that it's not even a little bit higher too.
Speaker 1: And according to a New York Times article about this,
Speaker 1: apparently the whole name changed thing is more common among lesbians.
Speaker 1: But not surprisingly, this doesn't have to do with old
Speaker 1: school ideas about chivalry and a woman's rightful place subservient
Speaker 1: to her husband, but rather, in the words of one
Speaker 1: lesbian bride of quote, being able to change their name
Speaker 1: is a way of having their home state recognize their marriage. Yeah. Um, So,
Speaker 1: backing up just a minute to what Kristen was talking
Speaker 1: about about, like the old tradition of chivalry. It's something
Speaker 1: that I read and had to read like three times
Speaker 1: because I couldn't believe. I mean, I can't believe it,
Speaker 1: but anyway, I'll just say it. Okay. So you know,
Speaker 1: changing your name is an ancient tradition. It dates back
Speaker 1: to the common law doctrine of coverture, when a bride
Speaker 1: assumed her husband's name and legal identity, and in what
Speaker 1: is called civil death, ceased to exist as a separate
Speaker 1: legal person, which I'm just like, ceased to civil death. What.
Speaker 1: And so the fact that in same sex weddings you
Speaker 1: don't have that same gender norm, traditional genderal baggage, those
Speaker 1: those dividing lines, I think that really opens people up
Speaker 1: to being able to make a more informed, egalitarian, educated choice,
Speaker 1: like no, we're going to change our names to this
Speaker 1: because of this. For instance, in one of these stories
Speaker 1: I can't remember if it was in the New York
Speaker 1: Times for the Atlantic, that was talking to a lesbian couple.
Speaker 1: One half of the couple was a very tall woman
Speaker 1: and she wanted to get rid of her name, her
Speaker 1: last name which was like kind of German sounding or something,
Speaker 1: and her wife to be her last name was teeny. Yeah,
Speaker 1: she said that there was no way that she was
Speaker 1: going to take on the last name teeny and simply
Speaker 1: set herself up for the lifetime of jokes after that.
Speaker 1: But I have a feeling too that the that sort
Speaker 1: of name changing decision is also going to be more
Speaker 1: influenced by whether or not their kids involved, and it's
Speaker 1: probably not as big of a deal if both parties
Speaker 1: don't elect to change their names at all, right, or
Speaker 1: hyphen a or whatever, because they're not really bound, Like
Speaker 1: we said, they're not really bound by the same etiquette
Speaker 1: pressure that a lot of straight couples find themselves under.
Speaker 1: And it is that whole realm of etiquette though, which
Speaker 1: some people argue, is what is making the introduction of
Speaker 1: the idea of gay marriage to a lot of straight
Speaker 1: people more almost more palatable to people who otherwise wouldn't
Speaker 1: have agreed with it. Uh. Stephen Petro answers questions about
Speaker 1: GBT etiquette wedding etiquette for The New York Times, and
Speaker 1: he addressed this whole topic of gay weddings in a
Speaker 1: June column by way of answering a question about a
Speaker 1: gift registry. And basically this couple was like, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: we're having a second wedding. You know, is it tacky
Speaker 1: to register for gifts and ask our friends to get
Speaker 1: us stuff? So that's like the surface question, that's a
Speaker 1: good etiquette question. But the reality when you dive under
Speaker 1: what that question was, the whole reason these people were
Speaker 1: having a second wedding is because when they had originally
Speaker 1: married in two thousand four, their wedding in California had
Speaker 1: been annulled. Their marriage had been annulled by the state.
Speaker 1: And so it's not like they're just having a second
Speaker 1: wedding for kicks. They're getting married in a like a second, real,
Speaker 1: actual wedding to be spouses and so um. Petro was
Speaker 1: basically using that etiquette question to talk about how what
Speaker 1: like a watershed moment we find ourselves in that the
Speaker 1: who are normally like so outside the bounds of typical
Speaker 1: etiquette and and whatever, are asking these questions and they
Speaker 1: tend to have almost like a deeper meaning. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: had never really thought of etiquette in this more significant
Speaker 1: kind of way, because typically, if I think of etiquette,
Speaker 1: it sounds very stodgy to me. It's going to be
Speaker 1: more of the blue haired grandma in the corner who
Speaker 1: might not want anything to do with this crazy new
Speaker 1: thing called gay weddings. But Petro makes a great point
Speaker 1: about how the rise of etiquette, that there have been
Speaker 1: these peaks in etiquette throughout the twentieth century now the
Speaker 1: twenty one century, related correlated to giant social changes happening.
Speaker 1: So he writes, for instance, that it was no coincidence
Speaker 1: that the first edition of Emily Post Etiquette, which came
Speaker 1: out in was published soon after the bloodshed and social
Speaker 1: upheaval of World War One. Yeah, and while we're not
Speaker 1: saying that the bloodshed of role where one has anything
Speaker 1: to do with gay weddings, what we are trying to say,
Speaker 1: and what Petro is is stressing, is that it's almost
Speaker 1: like etiquette rules, you're able to introduce something new and
Speaker 1: different through traditional channels. Essentially you're you're calming people down
Speaker 1: about some social upheaval, some social change. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: happening relatively quickly, I would say, and I'm sure there
Speaker 1: are a lot of social anxieties out there. But when
Speaker 1: you're just talking about two men or two women trying
Speaker 1: to figure out a gift registry, like that's universal. You know,
Speaker 1: that's a universal wedding question. Well, and that's a whole
Speaker 1: That's the whole thing that comes up also in these
Speaker 1: media reports or trend stories, and I hate that they're
Speaker 1: even trend stories because it's here to stay on gay
Speaker 1: marriage is the fact that it is treated a lot
Speaker 1: as a novelty, which is a little unfortunate because at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, this is a question about
Speaker 1: two people getting married, and unless we can put them
Speaker 1: in the category of other, I'm like, oh, well, you
Speaker 1: need your own set of rules because you're the special
Speaker 1: case over here. I think we'll see maybe some of
Speaker 1: that eroding as we progress into this just being a
Speaker 1: normal part of our society. I think we will. I
Speaker 1: think we totally will. I think we're at a stage
Speaker 1: right now where a lot of people have to say
Speaker 1: gay wedding or straight wedding or gay wedding etiquette or whatever.
Speaker 1: But I do think we are getting closer to a
Speaker 1: time where it's just like wedding etiquette, don't invite family
Speaker 1: members who don't support you, regardless of who you're marrying exactly.
Speaker 1: And we're seeing that evidence of that in the publication
Speaker 1: of wedding announcements in newspapers. In two thousand eight, Glad
Speaker 1: looked at how many papers across the country have policies
Speaker 1: that that published same sex wedding announcements, And I think
Speaker 1: we're starting to see evidence of that in wedding announcements
Speaker 1: in newspapers. So in two thousand two, The New York
Speaker 1: Times began opening up its wedding pages to LGBT couples,
Speaker 1: And in two thousand and eight, GLAD looked at how
Speaker 1: that had had a ripple effect to other newspapers around
Speaker 1: the country and found that and I'm sure the number
Speaker 1: has gone up since then. It found that daily newspapers
Speaker 1: in the US except wedding or commitment ceremony announcements for
Speaker 1: same sex couples. Yeah, and um, I mean, as they should.
Speaker 1: But you can imagine. I mean, I'm someone who worked
Speaker 1: at a daily newspaper in not the most progressive town,
Speaker 1: so you know, I can only I can only imagine
Speaker 1: some of the newsroom discussions or whatever. But despite the
Speaker 1: progress that a lot of daily newspapers have shown, there
Speaker 1: have been several articles in the past couple of years
Speaker 1: highlighting the newspapers that are refusing to publish them. For instance, um,
Speaker 1: back in Fall, the tech Sarcanic Gazette in Texas refused
Speaker 1: to publish the announcement from Michelle Cooks and Patricia Wrightner
Speaker 1: because they cited this policy that the appending nuptials have
Speaker 1: to be recognized in the state in which the paper circulates.
Speaker 1: It sounded like a whole like overproduced excuse just to
Speaker 1: not run it, exactly making up a rule in order
Speaker 1: to be able to say no. And unfortunately, that's not
Speaker 1: the only example of discrimination that same sex couples might
Speaker 1: be facing in the process of planning a wedding. And
Speaker 1: we're going to highlight some of those instances when we
Speaker 1: come right back from a quick break. So when we
Speaker 1: left off, we had mentioned that hooray, so many newspapers
Speaker 1: around the country are now publishing same sex wedding announcements
Speaker 1: and that's fantastic. Four issues of visibility, etcetera. But there
Speaker 1: are still bigoted pockets of the United States that aren't
Speaker 1: so keen on assisting with gay weddings. Yeah, one that
Speaker 1: really uh stuck out to me in the news was
Speaker 1: the whole cake thing. Remember the whole cake thing, The
Speaker 1: whole cake thing, that whole cake thing. In December, a
Speaker 1: judge ordered Colorado baker Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop
Speaker 1: in Denver to stop discriminating against gay couples or face fines.
Speaker 1: The judge said that he violated the law when he
Speaker 1: turned a couple away in twelve simply for being gay
Speaker 1: and wanting to be married, and the judge in that
Speaker 1: case cited state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service
Speaker 1: based on race, sex, marital status, or sexual orientation. Writing
Speaker 1: at first Blush, it may seem reasonable that a private
Speaker 1: business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses.
Speaker 1: This view, however, fails to take into account the cost
Speaker 1: of society and the hurt caused of persons who are
Speaker 1: denied service simply because of who they are. Now. Of course,
Speaker 1: this angered some, particularly religious conservatives, because Jack Phillips the Baker,
Speaker 1: said that it was due to his Christian beliefs that
Speaker 1: he would bake any other kind of cake. He said
Speaker 1: that he would even bake a wedding cake for a
Speaker 1: dog wedding. He simply would not bake a cake for
Speaker 1: a gay marriage. If it had just been um, a
Speaker 1: gay birthday party, still fine, But because of his beliefs
Speaker 1: about the sanctity, the Christian sanctity of marriage, it wasn't okay.
Speaker 1: And so there were some you know, conservative politicians who
Speaker 1: came out saying, this is an overreach of you know,
Speaker 1: judicial power, tamping down on our religious freedoms. And the
Speaker 1: tangential debates from there that emerged, one of which we
Speaker 1: read over at The Atlantic was really interesting because at
Speaker 1: one point gay commentator Andrew Sullivan weighed in, saying, you
Speaker 1: know what, somebody doesn't want to bake me a cake
Speaker 1: for my gay wedding, that's totally fine. It seems like
Speaker 1: at this point the number of people who are are
Speaker 1: so staunchly against this are are so small and and
Speaker 1: becoming so clearly um out of touch with their views
Speaker 1: and out numbered and outnumbered that it's almost like it's
Speaker 1: not worth the effort. But at the same time, still,
Speaker 1: I'm sure gay couples who are planning weddings say, you
Speaker 1: know what, actually, it is completely worth the effort because
Speaker 1: we should be able to and be granted the rights
Speaker 1: to plan a wedding with the same kind of freedom
Speaker 1: that everybody else does. Yeah, everybody likes cake. Everybody likes
Speaker 1: everybody likes cake. Everybody Okay, and you know what, everybody
Speaker 1: likes to have photographers at their wedding too. But we
Speaker 1: have we've had some problems with photographers. Um Elaine Photography
Speaker 1: studio co owner Elaine Huguenin refused to photograph a same
Speaker 1: sex couple, saying that it would violate her religious beliefs
Speaker 1: similar to the cake baker, and claiming that she's protected
Speaker 1: under the First Amendment. But in April, the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: rejected an appeal from her studio, letting the New Mexico
Speaker 1: High Court ruling stand that she was discriminating. And then
Speaker 1: we also have similar things happening with florists. In March,
Speaker 1: Baronel Stutsman, a flower shop owner, refused to supply flowers
Speaker 1: for a couple in Washington State, and Stutsman is being
Speaker 1: sued by the couple and the state Attorney General's office
Speaker 1: for violating the consumer protection laws similar to the cake incident,
Speaker 1: where basically their laws saying, hey, guess what, it's great
Speaker 1: that you own a business can't really discriminate based on uh,
Speaker 1: someone's race, sexual orientation, ability, et cetera. And it's good
Speaker 1: that those laws are in place because those laws were
Speaker 1: probably initially enacted to prevent racial discrimination. Let's continue forging
Speaker 1: forward in our quest for civil rights for everyone, shall we? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: And along those same lines, we have this trend again.
Speaker 1: I don't like to use the word trend, but you
Speaker 1: do have this kind of trend popping up of a
Speaker 1: lot of straight couples saying either I'm not gonna get
Speaker 1: married until my gay friends can get married, or they're
Speaker 1: trying to incorporate something into their actual same sex wedding
Speaker 1: ceremony to indicate to all of their guests that they
Speaker 1: support same sex marriage and want you to support it too.
Speaker 1: And I am curious though, on this particular issue, to
Speaker 1: know what LGBT listeners think about this thing of straight
Speaker 1: allies sort of doing our own like standing with you
Speaker 1: refusing to get married, or maybe we're just gonna go
Speaker 1: ahead and get married, but we're gonna acknowledge the fact
Speaker 1: but not everybody can get married, Like is it does
Speaker 1: it feel disingenuous? Yeah? That's something that I'm wondering too,
Speaker 1: because I know a couple who dated for years and
Speaker 1: I mean they're super live and they absolutely said, like
Speaker 1: we are not there's no way we are getting married
Speaker 1: until everyone can get married. And then, of course, a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago they got married. And so I'm
Speaker 1: just wondering, like does that just make it seem like, God,
Speaker 1: do you guys just shut up? And you know, like,
Speaker 1: I am curious to what our is that? Yeah, is
Speaker 1: that the appropriate way to acknowledge our heteronormat of privilege?
Speaker 1: You know, to put it in really stodgy sounding terms?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean I feel like it's a
Speaker 1: it's probably coming from a good place. Yeah, yeah, I yes,
Speaker 1: I believe it is too. I don't like believe it's
Speaker 1: an attention getting thing, but yeah, you have to wonder
Speaker 1: about it. One one example that I do like, um
Speaker 1: is from Anne Hathaway's wedding to Adam Schulman, her boyfriend
Speaker 1: and Hathaway the actors in case I don't know you're
Speaker 1: under a rock. But she authorized the sale of her
Speaker 1: wedding pictures to benefit Freedom to Marry, which is an
Speaker 1: advocate group, as well as three other charities, and a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago, Freedom to Marry created its own
Speaker 1: marital registry and since then the majority of donations they've
Speaker 1: received have come from heterosexual weddings. Yeah, and another. Straight
Speaker 1: couples have incorporated things like reading from court decisions on
Speaker 1: same sex marriage in their ceremony, or others might hand
Speaker 1: out lapel pins with the white Not logo, which is
Speaker 1: produced by an LGBT advocacy organization, White Not Dot Org,
Speaker 1: while others might ask us to sign petitions or open
Speaker 1: letters in support of gay marriage. So basically, but but
Speaker 1: isn't that again a little bit of let's have our
Speaker 1: cake and eat it too at our wedding, literally a
Speaker 1: little bit. I don't know. I don't know how I
Speaker 1: feel about it entirely because obviously I don't not support it.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, I think, is is this
Speaker 1: the best way to push push this forward? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know either. I mean maybe if it gets
Speaker 1: your some of your more conservative family members at least
Speaker 1: thinking about it, that's a good point. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't know. Yeah. LGBT listeners please advise.
Speaker 1: Because then there's also the whole thing of celebrity couples
Speaker 1: such as Brad and Angelina right saying they're not going
Speaker 1: to get married at all. Charlie Thorna said the same thing.
Speaker 1: dNaM has said that she and that guy with the
Speaker 1: big glasses who makes those pop songs won't get married
Speaker 1: until everyone can get married. Lena Dunham is just the
Speaker 1: most recent and a string of people. Although you know,
Speaker 1: like it's the same thing, does it come off as
Speaker 1: disingenuous because Brad Pitt has also come out and said that,
Speaker 1: you know, it's up to our kids. If our kids
Speaker 1: really want us to get married and it's important to them,
Speaker 1: then we will again, I think all of us just
Speaker 1: underscores the fact that it's incredible that we have the
Speaker 1: choice to do that and some people, a lot of
Speaker 1: people don't have the choice. You know. That just highlights
Speaker 1: how there's still such a disparity. Yeah, and so on
Speaker 1: the one hand, anything that can bring attention to that
Speaker 1: disparity is positive. However, you know, I feel like there's
Speaker 1: some crotchety old people out there looking at Lena Dunham
Speaker 1: and Angelina and shaking their fist and being like the
Speaker 1: dumb kids. You just have to wonder like, is it effective,
Speaker 1: is it genuine? Is it doing what they wanted to do?
Speaker 1: But it's not bad that they're doing it exactly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: definitely not bad that they're doing it. Um. Now, finally
Speaker 1: we got to talk of let's get down to brass
Speaker 1: tacks when it comes to weddings. If you want to
Speaker 1: really have an argument about, you know, kind of stripped
Speaker 1: of politics, you just talk about money. Let's just talk
Speaker 1: about the economics of gay marriage, because you know what,
Speaker 1: last time I checked, the U. S has this massive deficit. Okay,
Speaker 1: we could use some extra cash in the coffers. And
Speaker 1: one way to do that is to legalize a gay marriage. Yeah,
Speaker 1: trust me. Kristen checks the deficit every day. So last
Speaker 1: time she checked means like two minutes ago. I am
Speaker 1: fun at parties on her phone. Yeah. But no, it
Speaker 1: turns out you guys lo and behold. Granting people their
Speaker 1: civil rights can have an impact on the economy. Um.
Speaker 1: So if we look Predoma, if we go back before
Speaker 1: the Defensive Marriage Act was destroyed. Back in two thousand nine,
Speaker 1: the New York Times reported that same sex couple stood
Speaker 1: to lose as much as five grand over a lifetime
Speaker 1: because they couldn't marry and therefore get benefits like spousal
Speaker 1: health insurance and other off and that led to more
Speaker 1: same sex couples being more likely to be uninsured. And
Speaker 1: then that can snowball into people who are uninsured avoiding
Speaker 1: preventive care and winding up costing everybody when they go
Speaker 1: to the emergency room. It's a whole mess when people
Speaker 1: can't get spousal benefits. So economist Lee Badgett, writing for
Speaker 1: PBS in March, was citing her research and that from
Speaker 1: the Congressional Budget Office, and she was saying that state
Speaker 1: and federal budgets will actually get a positive boost if
Speaker 1: gay couples are allowed to marry. She talks about any
Speaker 1: additional state and federal spending on benefits, so once you're
Speaker 1: a spouse and you can receive spousal benefits would be
Speaker 1: outweighed by savings from lower cash assistance and medicaid spending.
Speaker 1: Badgets talking about all of these good, give and take
Speaker 1: economic aspects of allowing gay people to marry. She also
Speaker 1: talks about, now remember this is pre damas, she's also
Speaker 1: talking about how there'd probably be an increase in tax revenue.
Speaker 1: She talks about how all of a sudden, you've got
Speaker 1: this basically like pent up pot, what wedding ready population
Speaker 1: who's been unable to marry this whole time, and suddenly
Speaker 1: you're going to have like the floodgates open and thousands
Speaker 1: of excited couples can start finally planning a quote unquote
Speaker 1: real wedding. And she said that would generate at least
Speaker 1: one point five billion dollars by her calculations, and spending
Speaker 1: on things like flowers, cakes, fans, meals, photographers, hotels, tourism, suits, gowns,
Speaker 1: and not to mention those really expensive like bridle or
Speaker 1: groom party outfits can I just mention, though, Caroline, that
Speaker 1: when you said this pent up group of people ready
Speaker 1: to get married, I just envisioned a bunch of brides
Speaker 1: and grooms leaping out of a crock pot simmering. I
Speaker 1: picture I picture them at like the start line of
Speaker 1: a race, like, let us freaking get married. And then
Speaker 1: her last point one of when one of Badgett's other
Speaker 1: points was that there are a ton of employers who, really,
Speaker 1: you know, they don't care, like have a wedding, don't
Speaker 1: have a wedding, I don't care. But there are a
Speaker 1: lot of employers big and small out there who say,
Speaker 1: we just want to recruit and retain the best people.
Speaker 1: And if making our employees better means making them happy,
Speaker 1: and if making them happy means letting them get married,
Speaker 1: then freaking let them get married. Uh. Companies like Google, Apple, Viacom, Nike,
Speaker 1: all these people are saying, we just want our LGBT
Speaker 1: employees to actually be able to focus on their jobs
Speaker 1: and being really super creative and awesome, not dealing with
Speaker 1: the whole issue of stigma and inequality that creates problems
Speaker 1: and stress on their families. Yeah, and so if you
Speaker 1: look at New York as an example, where gay marriage
Speaker 1: was legalized in two thousand eleven, the state has seen
Speaker 1: an economic ripple effect from same sex marriage. This was
Speaker 1: reported on by CNN in July, and it found that
Speaker 1: between things like marriage license fees, local celebrations, and wedding
Speaker 1: related purchases, New York The's economy added two million dollars
Speaker 1: to its bottom line, right, and the city collected sixteen
Speaker 1: million dollars in tax revenue from same sex marriages during
Speaker 1: that period. And remember this is just in a year
Speaker 1: from when it was legalized in New York to the
Speaker 1: article being written in July. But weddings, not not just
Speaker 1: like getting your license, not just you know, having a
Speaker 1: little local dinner party to celebrate. Weddings brought the biggest
Speaker 1: economic boost to New York City, with about sixty seven
Speaker 1: percent of same sex couples who got married in the
Speaker 1: city holding wedding receptions at venues in the city like hotels, restaurants,
Speaker 1: all that stuff throughout New York City. But then that
Speaker 1: also brings up my more cynical side caroline of saying, well,
Speaker 1: is this only just feeding the wedding industrial complex? I
Speaker 1: think I'm just terrified of ever being at a point
Speaker 1: in my life where I'm expected to spend twenty seven
Speaker 1: thousand dollars on one day. I just don't know if
Speaker 1: I can do it now, the y O. B Man.
Speaker 1: So for a more recent example, let's look at Utah, which,
Speaker 1: at the time of us recording this podcast is basically
Speaker 1: on the legal precipice of same sex marriage being allowed,
Speaker 1: and the u c l A. Based Williams Institute found
Speaker 1: that legalizing same sex marriage could generate in Utah fifteen
Speaker 1: point five million dollars in wedding spending in more than
Speaker 1: one million dollars in sales tax revenue for Utah's economy
Speaker 1: in just the first three years, And on top of that,
Speaker 1: it could also generate two d sixty eight jobs in
Speaker 1: the tourism and hospitality sector. Yeah, so, I mean, weddings
Speaker 1: in general are kind of a shot in the arm
Speaker 1: for state economies. Just imagine though, if you have like
Speaker 1: this big rush of people being like we could have weddings. Now,
Speaker 1: who's to say that it won't like eventually kind of
Speaker 1: level off in plateau. But hey, states, if you're if
Speaker 1: you're looking to make some money and also grant people's
Speaker 1: civil rights. Yeah, I mean, because I'm just saying that
Speaker 1: the whole economic argument is a good one to up
Speaker 1: in your back pocket when you're talking to people who
Speaker 1: aren't so on board with the idea of same sex marriage,
Speaker 1: because it's hard to argue with saying, well, you know this,
Speaker 1: this would generate massive amounts of money. Everybody likes money, right,
Speaker 1: everybody likes money. Um. But so, looking to a gallop
Speaker 1: pole that was conducted on us spending from January through September,
Speaker 1: so sort of straddling pre and post doma um, they
Speaker 1: found that married Americans spend more than those in any
Speaker 1: other marital status category across age groups. So there's another argument.
Speaker 1: When you're married, you spend more money. Americans who have
Speaker 1: never married spend significantly less, particularly for those people who
Speaker 1: were under fifty, suggesting that if the marriage rate increases
Speaker 1: across the country, overall spending may increase and benefit our economy.
Speaker 1: Yet another reason why extending civil rights to all is
Speaker 1: a good idea, right because think about it, if you're
Speaker 1: pooling two incomes, basically, even if you have separate bank accounts, um,
Speaker 1: you are more likely to to actually spend on things.
Speaker 1: Maybe fix up your house, fix up your yards, go on. Vacation,
Speaker 1: who knows, who knows. The possibilities really are endless for
Speaker 1: how you could spend your money. So what do we
Speaker 1: have to say with all of this, Caroline, Gay weddings happening,
Speaker 1: Old traditions meet new traditions. Yeah, I think, Um, on
Speaker 1: the one hand, it must be nice to not have
Speaker 1: that traditional baggage of like we have to do weddings
Speaker 1: this one way. On the other hand, it's unfortunate that
Speaker 1: that freedom stems from the fact that these folks have
Speaker 1: never been allowed to marry and so they haven't had
Speaker 1: traditions in place already. But um, you know, if if
Speaker 1: anyone out there wants to invite me to your, uh,
Speaker 1: to your same sex wedding, it sounds like it would
Speaker 1: be a lot of fun judging by the statistics we
Speaker 1: have presented here. Well, you know what, weddings are usually fun.
Speaker 1: I like going to weddings. Personally, I don't want to
Speaker 1: plan one, but I enjoy going if there's an it depends.
Speaker 1: I've been to some good ones and I've been to
Speaker 1: some if well, And we're going to talk about that
Speaker 1: on the next episode of Stuff I've Never told you.
Speaker 1: With our interview with Jen Dahl, who wrote an entire
Speaker 1: memoir about going to weddings. Because guess what, folks, whether
Speaker 1: you knew it or not, it's weddings week here on
Speaker 1: the podcast. But LGBT listeners, we especially want to hear
Speaker 1: from you on this, those who have gotten married. Have
Speaker 1: you gone through the whole gay wedding planning and encountered
Speaker 1: any of the things that we were talking about. Are
Speaker 1: you tired of being treated as a trend piece in
Speaker 1: the wedding section in the New York Times. Do you
Speaker 1: think that all this is positive and good and we
Speaker 1: are accelerating in the right direction. Yeah, I do think.
Speaker 1: Let me reiterate, I do think that it is on
Speaker 1: the horizon that we're getting to a place where there
Speaker 1: isn't a gay wedding and a straight wedding. And I
Speaker 1: mean like living like I live in I live in
Speaker 1: midtown Atlanta, for instance, And the fact that you the
Speaker 1: fact that anyone would walk into a florist and would
Speaker 1: not be served because they are gay, Uh, just like
Speaker 1: wouldn't it just wouldn't happen, not in not where I live.
Speaker 1: And so but I understand that Atlanta is just a pocket, Yeah,
Speaker 1: a pocket, a special little blue pocket um in the
Speaker 1: red jeans of Georgia. Yeah, still still a lot of
Speaker 1: progress to be made, So LGBT listeners, we especially want
Speaker 1: to hear from you on this topic. What has been
Speaker 1: your experience with weddings? Are you hoping to plan one
Speaker 1: one day once same sex marriage becomes legal in your
Speaker 1: state or wherever you live. Have you planned one, and
Speaker 1: if so, what was it like? Please share all the
Speaker 1: details with us. Mom Stuff at how stuff works dot
Speaker 1: com is where you can send your emails. You can
Speaker 1: also tweet us at mom Stuff podcast or send us
Speaker 1: a Facebook message, and we've got a couple of Facebook
Speaker 1: messages to share with you right now. So I've got
Speaker 1: an email here from David, subject line that shaming in
Speaker 1: the gay community, and this is in response to our
Speaker 1: episode the body shame Epidemic. He writes, I've been a
Speaker 1: fat man my whole life. It hasn't been an easy time,
Speaker 1: but I'm slowly coming to grips with bad acceptance. By this,
Speaker 1: I mean, instead of focusing on the scale number, I'm
Speaker 1: trying to live a life that is happy, is being
Speaker 1: healthy and being loving. I'm lucky enough to have found
Speaker 1: a man who married me. Hey, speaking of gay weddings
Speaker 1: because I was fat, not in spite of it. This
Speaker 1: leads me to my story. When I was first exploring
Speaker 1: coming out, I attempted to go to a gay bar
Speaker 1: in my college town. I say attempted because in the
Speaker 1: parking lot a group of rather nice looking men cat
Speaker 1: called over to me. They said, hey, Patty, there isn't
Speaker 1: anything in there for you. No one will even look
Speaker 1: at you. It has stayed with me even today. While
Speaker 1: there are gay groups that welcome have your men, the
Speaker 1: gay community by and large is a vicious place of
Speaker 1: fat shaming. One needs only to surface glance at most
Speaker 1: a media to see the over obsession with twinks, hotness,
Speaker 1: and the like. While the straight community has this too,
Speaker 1: it does seem to be a bit more flexible in
Speaker 1: terms of allowing heavier members to be in and find love.
Speaker 1: Like you mentioned with the sitcom situation, I would like
Speaker 1: to think that gay culture and the community is changing,
Speaker 1: but there isn't a ton of evidence in that direction.
Speaker 1: That being said, I've been with the same wonderful man
Speaker 1: for twenty years and have been happily married for five
Speaker 1: ever since our state made it legal. So I would
Speaker 1: like to hear from other gay listeners about that. Do
Speaker 1: you have you witnessed or experienced a similar kind of
Speaker 1: more extreme or more acute I should say that shaming
Speaker 1: among the LGBT community let us know. Okay, I have
Speaker 1: a letter here from Kirsty about our women and gaming episodes. Uh.
Speaker 1: She says it reminded me so much of a conversation
Speaker 1: between a good guy friend of mine and my husband.
Speaker 1: The guy friend, who definitely qualifies as a hardcore gamer,
Speaker 1: said that he thinks that so much exposure to video
Speaker 1: games has just started his view of women, since they
Speaker 1: are always portrayed as helpless princesses that need to be rescued. Thus,
Speaker 1: this is the kind of romantic relationship he expects to have. Also,
Speaker 1: he thinks it has given him unrealistic expectations of what
Speaker 1: women's body should look like, since they are always portrayed well, unrealistically.
Speaker 1: My husband's response was that it is complete bs to
Speaker 1: blame attitudes about women exclusively on video games, and that
Speaker 1: there are plenty of video games that have awesome female
Speaker 1: characters if you actually bother to look for them. He
Speaker 1: says that Sama's is one of his favorite characters because
Speaker 1: she is, in his words, a total badass. She is
Speaker 1: super tough and certainly doesn't need any rescuing for the
Speaker 1: entire game. Her sex is a non issue, and he
Speaker 1: thought it was really cool when she was revealed to
Speaker 1: be a woman because it flew in the face of
Speaker 1: expectations about action here is It surprised me that you
Speaker 1: had only negative things to say about Sammy's on the
Speaker 1: podcast is she is so well beloved and better known
Speaker 1: for being tough than being sexy. And she says, by
Speaker 1: the way, that her husband is currently playing uh Final
Speaker 1: Fantasy Third Team, I'd and realize that exists, which has
Speaker 1: a really awesome female protagonist, and he does. He said
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter to him either way if the character
Speaker 1: he's playing is male or female. Is long is the
Speaker 1: game is good. So thank you for writing in, Kirsty,
Speaker 1: and thanks to everybody who's written into us. Mom stuff
Speaker 1: at how stuff Works dot Com is our email address
Speaker 1: and to find all the links to our social media blog, post, videos,
Speaker 1: and podcast, there's one place to go, and it's stuff
Speaker 1: Mom Never Told You dot com. For more on this
Speaker 1: and thousands of other topics, does it how stuff works
Speaker 1: dot com. Audible dot com is the leading provider of
Speaker 1: downloadable digital audio books and spoken word entertainment. Audible has
Speaker 1: over one hundred thousand titles to choose from to be
Speaker 1: downloaded to your iPod or MP three player. Go to
Speaker 1: audible podcast dot com slash stuff mom to get a
Speaker 1: free audio book download of your choice when you sign
Speaker 1: up today. That's Audible podcast dot com, slash stuff mom.