Never Know What to Expect at a Wedding
Never Know What to Expect at a Wedding
By Dwight A. Moody, Dean of the Chapel
Georgetown College, KY
My three children have ten cousins on one side of the family and many of them traveled to Ohio to celebrate with the first of the thirteen to marry. The bride was beautiful, the crowd was large, the rain held off, and a good time was had by all.
Mostly the marriage was traditional: held in a church, led by a minister, filled with music, and included the customary vows, rings and candles. The reception that followed featured a tent, a cake, and a memorable toast by the brother of the groom. We took lots of pictures.
Fortunately, this family occasion did not have to adjust to any of the marital innovations that others have had to deal with over the years: such as mail order brides, living-together engagements, or mass marriages (remember the Moonies?).
Neither was it just another matrimonial stop on the bus known as serial monogamy, that vehicle of modern transportation that, thanks to relaxed divorce laws, takes people from one spouse to another.
No, this was a rather conventional ceremony by two young adults with strong Christian convictions; and thus was a day of thanksgiving and inspiration for all of us.
But there were some things in the wedding I had never seen.
A total of 24 attendants lined the front of the sanctuary. A PowerPoint presentation flashed pictures of the life and times of both bride and groom. Each had written for public hearing a confession of "Why I Chose You."
But best of all: with her gorgeous gown of white silk, the bride wore tennis shoes-which none of us noticed until, after cutting the cake, she lifted her train ever so slightly to display her wonderful mixture of sly humor and sensibility!!
These innovations, though, do not hold a candle to what happened the same week further north in Canada.
Heather and Lisa exchanged vows mere hours after an Ontario appeals court voted to extend full marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.
Earlier, judges in British Columbia ordered the federal government to rewrite the rules of marriage so as to define it as "the lawful union of two persons."
Toronto, it is predicted, will become the new Las Vegas for couples wanting to get married. Canada, unlike Belgium and the Netherlands, has no residency requirements for securing and using a marriage license.
This, of course, solves some problems, especially those that deal with the civil, financial and legal rights of homosexuals.
But it raises some questions as well.
Like, why two? Why not three women, or four men, or one man and four women? What, after all, are the rational, moral and practical grounds for limiting marriage to two people? After all, polygamy has a long and legal history in some parts of the world.
Nothing prevented my nephew from soliciting the support of twenty-four attendants, but what will happen when some future wedding somewhere features twelve brides and twelve grooms, each married to everybody else?
Then there is the relationship issue.
My nephew and his bride printed in the wedding bulletin the touching story of their meeting, their on-again-off-again romance, and the phone call at midnight one providential day last September.
But the emergence of same-sex marriages throws into doubt the rules that govern who can marry and who can not marry.
Like cousins? If procreation is not the chief end of the marriage, why can`t our Kentucky tradition of "kissin` cousins" be adopted by people everywhere?
Consider siblings, in-laws, and even parents-not to mention step-people of every sort. The various kinds of coupling that can and may occur strains the imagination.
As the father of three young adult children of marriageable age, just thinking about these things nurtures deep in my soul a fresh appreciation for tradition. Somebody hand me the rice!
Copyright 2003 Dwight A. Moody
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
