« Freedom from Chinese imports | Main | At least the K has fireworks … »

July 10, 2008

Gay wedding ‘traditions’

The story on California’s gay wedding traditions (7/5, FYI, “White cake, flowers and two tuxedos; At California’s gay weddings, traditions remain strong”) said more about reporter Derrik J. Lang’s bias toward the subject than about the subject itself.

Soothing readers with words like “tradition,” “commitment” and “marriage equality,” Lang tried to normalize the gay marriage experience, even implying that these unions are so authentic, they don’t have to “hide behind a basic ritual.”

They cannot hide, because anyone with common sense knows that a wedding and a marriage celebrates only one thing: the audacious effort of a man and a woman to become one unit for life, a truth lost on the California Supreme Court when it overturned the will of the people and mandated gay marriage last May.

Wordplay matters in the battle for marriage, and Lang showed his hand shamelessly. I urge The Star to opt for more objective reporting on this crucial topic.

Andrew Comiskey
Kansas City



The wedding is all about personal taste. There's no Ministry of Matrimonial Tradition and Norms in the United States. If a lesbian wears something old, something borrowed, and something blue, the old is no less old, the borrowed is no less borrowed and the blue is no less blue. Get over it. It's happening.


mike d I almost agree, I think after the 2nd marriage you should be cut off from marriage if the marriages ended in divorce. If you are a widow/er that is different.
These women that have 5 kids from 7 marriages is pathetic, most will be voting for Obama (free handout man).

mike d

Us self-righteous hetero's have done such a bang up job preserving the sanctity of marriage that we don't want those evil gay people to come in and screw up our exemplary track record. If all these people who are so worried about what everyone else is doing, why are they not advocating for one marriage, per person, per lifetime?


Andy, anyone with common sense knows that a wedding and marriage celebrate the union of two consenting adults who love each other (regardless of gender). What's it to you who your neighbor marries? ALL consenting adults should have the right to marry the person of their choosing, regardless of gender.


I am reminded of a line from a movie whose name I cannot remember.

"I now pronounce you man and, uh.., the one who receives."

It should make for an interesting burden of proof during divorce proceedings.


What about gay divorce, who gets the extrotion money? That is the question. [EDITED BY MODERATOR]


It's so obvious that Andrew is extremely anti-gay to the point that he can't see straight.

The unusual aspects of the gay marriages was that they continue with the "traditional" wedding and all the trappings with it - even men. That was the overall point of the article.

I'm a heterosexual female but my common sense obviously isn't the same as Andrews (and I'm pretty level headed). A marriage is between two adults who love each other and want to make a lifetime commitment with each other. Isn't that the situation with the gay marriages? Might be a variation on a them but the basics are there.

Some people still want to live in the 50's. Not all change is bad - sometimes it's just change.


Dream on Andy, that sort of thing is not on the Falling Star's agenda....

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright