President Bush has said many times that marriage is a "sacred institution." Compare these two contemporary visions of marriage. One is legal, the other is not:
Vision #1, from the "Viva Las Vegas Wedding Chapel":
"Intergalactic Themed Wedding Package:
Stardate, your wedding day. Your special day is presided over by the one and only Captain James T. Quirk or Captain Schpock, in the Starship Chapel. Surrounded by life-size cutouts of your favorite space characters, you enter into your new life, going places no man has gone before.
"This wedding comes complete with one Minister, Transporter, one illusion entrance, Captain Quirk or Schpock as your minister, theatrical lighting, and plenty of fog."
Versus vision #2, from a Salon article by a woman who recently married her partner of 25 years in San Francisco:
"After 25 years, after sharing everything that married people share -- children, failures, disappointments, illnesses, successes, adventures, mortgages, intimacy, boredom, in-laws... I looked at my dearest one and promised trust and honor and loyalty, gifts long ago given freely, gifts openly given for decades. A gift here, finally, consecrated and witnessed. 'I thee wed, partners for life.'"
Which of these visions is more "sacred"? Why?
I find it interesting that while the White House ponders a Constitutional amendment assuring that marriage remains sacred, huge numbers of American television viewers recently tuned into a wedding-themed program. On February 18, while hundreds of couples stood in the rain in San Francisco hoping for the chance to get a marriage license, over 16 million people watched My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance on TV, its ratings beating out 60 Minutes, 20/20, and Frasier.
The show hasn't made it to Japan, but according to the Fox website, the premise is this:
"After months of ordinary TV weddings, the real fun is just beginning when FOX rings the wedding bells to sound off the ultimate practical joke... Over six episodes, Steve... will test the limits of his recently engaged girlfriend's family and friends through shocking behavior. Our 'bride'... must make it all the way through the wedding ceremony and final 'I do's ' in order to win a million dollars."
When is something too sacred to be offered freely to a sizeable portion of the population, but not so sacred that it can't be the subject of a televised practical joke? Was Britney Spears' 55-hour long marriage to a man inherently more sacred than Rosie O'Donnell's recent marriage to her girlfriend of six years? Would a couple's Star Trek or Phantom of the Opera-themed wedding in Las Vegas be more sacred because they were straight?
California led the country in 1948 by having the first state high court to declare bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. I hope their example can lead us again. As it stands, the federal government recognizes Star Trek-themed weddings by heterosexual couples in Las Vegas, but questions ceremonies in its own courthouse just nine hours' drive away. Aren't equality and justice sacred too?