A Hudson Valley Train   The day before Valentine’s Day this year, my sister Chris and I boarded an Amtrak train out of New York’s Penn Station for a two-hour ride north up along the Hudson Valley to attend a Valentine’s Day wedding. For two nights we would be the guests of the couple, and help them with preparations. Pulling westbound out of Penn, we turned north out of the tunnel and up the west shore of Manhattan, with bright, sunny, wintery views across the Hudson of the Palisades and George Washington Bridge. We passed other bridges and sights, including the former rail bridge in Poughkeepsie that is now the Walkway Over the Hudson, that I’d walked across last year with friends Audrey and Jane, and nephew Greg and his wife Rosemary (2011/8).

We were headed to the famous Catskill Mountains, lying across the river (C on the map) and about 2/3 the way to Albany. It’s the area where the Hudson River School of landscape painting was centered in the 18C, including those artists such as Cole, Church, Bierstadt, Durand and others. We’d have to do another trip sometime to visit sites connected with these artists. This time, though, we were picked up in Hudson NY and drove over the quaintly-named Rip Van Winkle Bridge to Catskill NY, where the couple lived.

Three Personal Firsts   Other than the fact that it’s always a pleasure to see friends get married, this particular wedding would involve three firsts for me. (1) It was the first home wedding I ever attended, which came off so well, I wonder why more people don’t consider it. You don’t need a mansion, nor even a tent on the lawn. A pleasant living room can serve quite well. (2) It was the first civil service I ever attended, with a local judge presiding. He even wore his judicial robes, a very nice touch which even the couple didn’t expect. There was also another local, retired judge in attendance, a friend of the family. (3) And even given the 19C Hudson River School Catskill Mountain ambience, this being the 21C, it was also the first same-sex wedding I ever attended, since, after a decade-and-a-half of being a couple, the above-mentioned friends Audrey and Jane were finally getting married, New York State having become the largest US state so far to sanction marriage equality eight months earlier, in June 2011.

Sociological Change   While many people consider any travel they do vacationing, possibly because they’re not working when they do it, the type of travel we discuss on these pages involves the traveler as explorer and observer, followed by the traveler as commentator. Such travel obviously covers primarily geography and history of places visited. To this on occasion we have included all sorts of related topics, such as art (Klimt, Munch, Gauguin), architecture (Santiago Calatrava, Norman Foster), literature (Chaucer, Cervantes, Proust), music (Rossini), film (Scent of a Woman), restaurants (21 Club), climatology (the Arctic and Subarctic), marine biology, both contemporary and ancient (in Manitoba), and many more subjects that we stumble onto in our travels, then research, and include in the mix of exploratory and observational travel, if of interest. Given the nature of this Hudson Valley trip, it would seem that a bit of sociology is in order, more specifically, sociological change.

What were they thinking?   When one ponders both civil rights and the concept of marriage in the 20C, in retrospect it’s very easy to wonder “What were they thinking?” Crusaders such as Emmaline Pankhurst had to fight for women’s suffrage in Britain, since many male voters there and elsewhere felt women weren’t fit for politics, but now that Britain has had a female Prime Minister (Thatcher) and the US has had to female Secretaries of state (Albright and Clinton), one wonders “What were they thinking?

Interracial marriage was illegal in parts of the US until the mid-20C, and the races were separated by law in many places, even in trivial locations such as buses. Would you send Rosa Parks to the back of the bus today? What were they thinking back then?

As was reported in the Tampa Bay Times on 18 February 2012 regarding old movies, we are surprised today about “what we once thought was too shocking for our innocent eyes and wonder what the all the fuss was about.” The 1953 film The Moon is Blue was picketed because someone used the word “pregnant”, and several male characters tried (unsuccessfully) to seduce the female lead character. What were those picketers thinking?

Divorce was close to impossible during much of the 20C (2007/16 “Reno”), and failed marriages had to be muddled through. It’s different today, but, as the TBT continued to point out, the 1947 film Miracle on 34th Street, which won three Oscars and is today a perennial holiday favorite on television, at the time was condemned by the Catholic Church because “of the sympathetic treatment of a divorced mother.” What were they thinking?

Evolving Lifestyles   From the last half of the 20C into the 21C, the significance of marriage has declined among the population. Today, many individuals of all ages remain single, and among couples, cohabitation, which has long since lost its social stigma, vies strongly with marriage as their choice of lifestyle.

The New York Times pointed out on 2 March 2012 that “a growing number of men and women in their 50’s and 60’s . . . are opting out of marriage. . . . Over the past 20 years, the[ir] divorce rate . . . has surged by more than 50%, even as divorce rates overall have stabilized nationally. At the same time, more adults are remaining single. The shift is changing the traditional portrait of older Americans: about a third of adults ages 46 through 64 were divorced, separated, or had never been married in 2000, compared with 13% in 1970. . . . Sociologists expect these numbers to rise sharply in coming decades as younger people, who have far lower rates of marriage than their elders [!!!!], move into middle age.” With evolving social mores, more couples of all ages are also living together--including raising children--than ever before.

Traditionally, marriage has been defended as the bastion of raising children. That may remain as an ideal, but it isn’t what is happening today in real life. The NYT said on 18 February 2012 that, among younger women, unwed mothers are now the majority. “It used to be called illegitimacy. Now it’s the new normal. After steadily rising for five decades, the share of children born to unmarried women has crossed a threshold: more than half the births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage. . . . Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, motherhood without marriage has settled deeply into middle America. . . . Among mothers of all ages, a majority--59% in 2009--are married when they have children. But the surge of births outside marriage among younger women--nearly 2/3 of children in the US are born to mothers under 30--is a symbol of the transforming family . . .”

When was the last time that you heard the expression “illegitimate child” used seriously, or worse, “bastard child?” Today, single mothers--and single fathers--have children. Married couples--and cohabiting couples--have children. And any couples--both straight and gay-- that want, but cannot have children, can turn to sperm banks or surrogates. Mix all these lifestyles with the blended families of remarriage, and you’ve reached the 21C, where traditional marriage is only one of many options people choose.

Let’s simplify the lifestyle equation. Leave out single people from consideration here, and let’s just consider couples. Leave out the factor of children, since that doesn’t define marriage any longer; marriage today is not the only place you find children, since singles or cohabiting couples have and raise children as well, either naturally or via sperm donation or surrogacy. So what’s left for our definition of marriage? What’s the difference between a cohabiting couple and a married couple? In good matches, the affection and mutual dedication above and beyond simple friendship is found in both. The difference is that the civil status of marriage affords the couple primarily social recognition of family, friends, and community, as well as legal benefits. Civil unions on the other hand, while affording legal benefits, lack social recognition, making them secondarily desirable, if at all. Hence the use of the term “marriage equality”, a civil right extended to all.

Status of 21C Marriage Equality   Marriage equality is the civil rights movement of the current generation, and the movement is spreading internationally among enlightened Western democracies. In years to come, people will look back at those who objected to marriage equality and wonder: what were they thinking? Some dictionaries have already begun adding phrases of gender neutrality to their definitions of marriage.

Worldwide Marriage equality has become a topic of choice in the enlightened Western democracies, and has been legally recognized for over a decade now, starting in 2001 in the Netherlands, the first country in the world to do so, followed by Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), and Argentina (2010). In Mexico, same-sex marriages are performed only in Mexico City, but recognized nationwide. In Brazil, they are performed only in one state, Alagoas, and in the US, in only six states and DC (below). As of the current year, there are proposals to introduce same-sex marriage in at least ten other countries. It is a movement of the 21C.

In the US In the US, marriage equality started in Massachusetts in 2004, followed by Connecticut (2008), Iowa (2009), Vermont (2009), New Hampshire (2010), New York (2011); it became legal in Washington DC in 2010. Several other states (Maine, California, Washington, Maryland, New Jersey) have had success in passing legislation, but have had difficulty with governors’ vetoes or referendums. The road to civil rights is rocky. The Maryland bill was named the “Civil Marriage Protection Act”. It was argued that “it is an issue of civil liberties that should not be decided by the majority . . . ; integration probably would not have happened if left to a popular vote.” Still, support in the US has increased steadily for more than a decade, with supporters first achieving a majority in 2010.

In New York State In New York State last 24 June, in the late evening, TV viewers across the state watched in anticipation the vote in the State Capitol in Albany, where the Marriage Equality Act was being debated. It had passed the State Legislature in 2007, 2009, and earlier in 2011, but had been rejected by the State Senate in 2009. The TV cameras were watching the State Senate to see if Governor Andrew Cuomo could convince four legislators to change their mind, vote their conscience, and just barely pass the Act. Only after provisions were added to exempt religious organizations from performing same-sex marriages and protecting them from discrimination lawsuits, the bill finally passed, and was signed by Governor Cuomo the same day. It became effective one month later, on 24 July 2011. The Act does not have a residency restriction, as some other states do, and immediately began attracting both locals and out-of-staters to New York State--and notably, New York City--to get married.

The atmosphere in the Victorian Romanesque State Senate at the point the Act was passed is apparent in this scene showing proponents in the visitor’s gallery. It is also notable that both Governor Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg promised the four swing-vote Senators, as a reward for voting their conscience and despite party differences, political support for future reelection in the face of possible negative constituent reaction.

Marriage & Church/State   It’s worth interjecting a point here about New York having to exempt religious institutions in this matter. We in the US, as in many countries, maintain considerable separation of church and state, but considerably less than elsewhere in marriage matters. The situation in France is worth bringing up. Simply put, in France, if you want a church wedding, you have to get married twice, although it’s usually done on the same day. The separation between church and state in France is sufficiently complete, so that the only legally valid marriage in the French legal system is a civil one. Even more precisely, such a civil ceremony must take place in a local mairie, or City Hall, where at least one of the parties has been a local resident for at least 40 days, requirements that cannot be waived.

To compare that with the US system, where the couple has to merely register in a local office, in France, that same registration is accompanied by an actual civil marriage ceremony, which can be quite simple or extended into a larger celebration. If the couple also wants a religious ceremony (“church wedding”), it can only take place afterward, often on the same day, when the couple presents the minister, priest, or rabbi with a document of civil marriage. Such a religious ceremony has significance only within the church, and not civilly. This would seem to be an ideal separation of church and state, each entity having authority in its own domain. This contrasts with the US system, where, quite incredibly when you think of it, the minister, priest, or rabbi actually acts as an arm of the state (!!!), their ceremony covering not only the church domain but simultaneously that of the state! It then becomes obvious that under such a blended system as in the US, some--not all--religious leaders might object and ask for the exemption that did take place in the New York bill.

I’ve reviewed general marriage requirements in a couple of other European countries, which do vary, but which still lay a strong emphasis on the Registry Office. Most curious, were the rules in Germany. Apparently until recently, German rules were the same as French ones. You get legally married only in the Registry Office (Standesamt), then a religious ceremony can follow if the couple so wishes. But on 1 January 2009, the rules were changed so that a couple can get married in a religious ceremony without the civil ceremony first. But legal experts now say that church weddings will not be able to carry the same weight as civil ones, since any couples married only in church will not have certain civil benefits gained only at the Standesamt, such as right to inheritance, right to alimony, or the ability to take advantage of tax benefits for married people.

It would seem that this new German regulation only muddies the waters. Perhaps it was passed to appease those who wanted to raise the importance of church weddings, and avoid having dual ceremonies, but it would be highly unwise for any couple to avoid the Standesamt and lose out on substantial civil benefits. It would also seem to emphasize the importance of keeping civil matters civil and religious matters religious, as is done with marriages in France but is unfortunately most definitely not done with marriages in the US.

Wedding Verbiage   To bring up an element of language comment, we can discuss wedding vows. I am a history lover and member of several historic preservation societies. In language, I think the (accurate) use of the occasional archaicism addeth a jovial style to writing, a spice, and what care I what ye think thereof? But when it comes to important events, I do not believe in keeping the language used incomprehensible to the participants. If you make a vow in a language you do not understand, how valid is that vow? What if you make it in an archaic form of your own language that you don’t fully understand. How valid is that?

In one very traditional style of wedding vow in English, each participant says “I plight thee my troth”. Wazzat? I had to look it up. “To plight” is an outdated word meaning to pledge, to promise; “troth” is fidelity, loyalty, and I now learn that it doesn’t rhyme with “broth” as I’d thought, but with “oath”. Why not just say “I promise to be faithful”, so that you understand what you’re pledging?

There’s a lot of ceremonial language commonly used that is worth being scrapped. Why start a wedding ceremony with “Dearly beloved”? Do I love everyone present? Does the person officiating? Try to identify the three archaicisms at the end of this very common phrase: “With this ring I thee wed.”

While the phrase is perfectly comprehensible, still: (1) most obvious the now archaic form “thee” appears in place of “you”; (2) while “to wed” is not yet archaic, it is overly quaint. People today don’t “wed” each other, they marry each other; (3) the verb-at-end word order is archaic for “I wed thee”; better “I wed you”; best “I marry you”.

Contemporary couples also mine old sociological concepts out of traditional wedding vows. “Love, honor, and obey” has long lost “obey” as being contrary to current thinking. “Love” is good, but even “honor” is not exactly right; there are better words. How about “cherish”?

I particularly am interested in what follows “I now pronounce you . . .” Most straight couples have altered the clumsy “man and wife” to “husband and wife”. But how about gay couples? What phrase fits best? I disparage the copycat “husband and husband” or “wife and wife” as being far too awkward and artificial. Only slightly better is “I now pronounce you spouses”, something that could apply to straight weddings as well. But the best is to toss nouns to the wind and move to a straightforward adjective: “I now pronounce you married.” I think ALL couples should use that terminology in their vows, and I was eager to see how that would work out with the two same-sex couples I know who’ve recently gotten married.

[Just one aside: as in most papers, the New York Times has a section of wedding announcements, most with photos. There’s no problem of photo identification with a caption such as “Robert X marries Georgina Y”. But for several years, ever since same-sex weddings started to be performed in nearby Massachusetts, the Times has included those announcements as well, and suddenly the word “left” became necessary in wedding photo captions, as in “Robert X (left) marries George Y” or “Roberta X (left) marries Georgina Y.” The word “left” has thus become a sign of the times (pun intended!).]

Ed and Charles   It’s hard not to get excited about a wedding of friends or family. If it’s your son and his girlfriend, or your son and his boyfriend (or whatever permutations thereof), it’s exciting to see two people entering into a commitment--or furthering an old one. I am fortunate enough to have two sets of friends who were able to take advantage of the change in New York State law, and, before we get back to the Catskills, let’s talk about Ed and Charles.

I’ve known them for a couple of years now. I’d heard just before, and while, I was in Churchill that, after 37 years (!!!) as a couple, they were going to get married, and had chosen 4 November, which I can remember since it was the day my train arrived back in New York from Toronto last fall. I emailed Ed shortly afterward, and said I’d like to take them out to dinner as a wedding present. We decided on 5 December, so it was essentially a celebration of their “one-month anniversary”. We enjoyed a very pleasant meal at “my” Portuguese restaurant, Alfama, in its new location on the Upper East Side. While Ed and Charles live on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, the wedding--which was a double wedding, as it turns out--took place in a private ceremony at a church in Brooklyn Heights just one block west on Pierrepont Street of the Brooklyn Historical Society (home of the Ratzer map) that I’m so familiar with. And the wedding supper was at Jack the Horse Tavern a few blocks away in Brooklyn Heights on Hicks and Cranberry, where, I too, have dined many times. After our dinner, I introduced both Ed and Charles to one of the owners, Tarcísio Costa, who was pleased to congratulate them on their marriage.

At dinner, and since then by email in February, Ed filled me in on the details. It would be more personal if I let him speak to readers directly.

Ed then points out that this church has on its website a page called “In their own words: Reflections of Couples and their Families”. It was Phil who submitted this:

[I will include the link to the Church’s website page for access to the wedding photo, although I’m sure the page will be updated with new events and this link might not show the proper photo in the future. No “left” is necessary here, since the caption is in four-way sequential order!]

In his email, Ed then continues that “. . . the Reverend who performed the wedding mentioned it in his sermon the following Sunday [two days later]. Mention of our wedding then brought an enthusiastic burst of applause from the congregation, which Phil and I [James and Charles didn't attend] thought was quite wonderful . . . and something we would never have dreamed possible in our youth.”

Reverend Jude’s (as he apparently is known) sermon is also available on the website. The first two paragraphs are pertinent to this discussion:

Ed knew of my particular interest in wording, and reports: “As for the vows, the minister pronounced these words: By the power vested in me by my religious community and the State of New York, I now pronounce you, Charles and Ed, married!” Perfect.

Audrey and Jane   Let’s now return to the Catskills. After Chris and I arrived on Valentine’s Day Eve, we helped Audrey and Jane make decisions for the ceremony the next day, including where it would be best for the judge to stand and conduct the ceremony. There being no wedding attendants, this was as much as a “rehearsal” as there was. Then, as it is my wont to do, I took out all four of us to dinner as my wedding present, so it served as a “rehearsal dinner”.

We drove to a local country restaurant of their choice in Saugerties NY, called “Ric Orlando’s New World Home Cooking Co”. The venue was modest, but the food was unusual and outstanding, specializing in degrees of spiciness, from bland to toe-curling (I ordered toe-curling). I mention the restaurant because of the reaction of two people. Our waitress was a pleasant young woman we enjoyed chatting with. I loved her reaction when Audrey told her they were getting married the next day. “Wonderful!”, she began, but then surprised me by adding “You’ve made my day!”

When I like a restaurant, I have no problem with trying to get to know the owner, chef, or owner/chef (see Alfama above), so during the meal, I took the waitress aside and asked her, given that it was a “slow” Monday, if Ric Orlando himself was in the house that evening. He was, and before I could ask, she volunteered to ask if I’d like him to stop by the table, which he did, a while later, and congratulated the couple. Then he pulled up a chair, sat down, and we chatted for about ten minutes about spices and food, especially ethnic spicy food. He also volunteered that, since the summer, he’d had more same-sex wedding celebrations like ours in the restaurant than celebrations for straight couples. He was apparently sufficiently pleased to host our little group that, when the bill came, as his own gift, he comped about 10% off the bill, sharing with me what now turned out to be my gift of 90% of the dinner. The positive reaction of both people in the restaurant added to the pleasure of the evening.

Audrey and Jane added that they’d had nothing but positive reactions. At the Registry Office, the clerk was thrilled, as was another clerk who was particularly taken by the triple significance of Valentine’s Day in this instance, since Valentine’s Day 1997 was Audrey and Jane’s first date, their earlier commitment ceremony was on Valentine’s Day 1999, and their wedding was now to be on Valentine’s Day 2012.

The next day, about 20-25 guests arrived, many local, in a rather widespread sense, and from New York City one guest came by train, as we had come, and one carful drove. The house accommodated all, balanced out between the adjoining living room, sitting room, country kitchen, and dining room. Judge William P Wooten, who serves as both Village and Town Justice for the town of Catskill, was to preside, and for good measure, a family friend, Judge Emeritus Matthew F Kennedy, former Village Justice for Coxsackie, was in attendance with his wife.

At three o’clock, Judge Wooten donned his robes and took his place at the end of the living room to start the ceremony, which lasted under five minutes. The text he used, which I asked him about afterward, since it was so perfect, he said he’d found online, and had originated from somewhere in Oregon. I think the text is very appropriate for all marriage ceremonies no matter who the couples are. I’ve transcribed it below from the wedding video. Judge Wooten began:

I applaud the use, in place of that trite “Dearly Beloved”, of a simple welcome to all. How refreshing. I also appreciate the 21C reference to “these exciting times”. Judge Wooten then asked each party the same question, to which they replied “I will”.

I think the term “life partner”, equally usable by male/female or same-sex couples, is an excellent phrase to describe what any marriage ceremony is all about. And in place of that “love/honor/(obey)”, the commitment here involves love, respect, honesty, and support.

There was a happy outburst of levity here as the guests laughed as both said “yes”. But the laughter was one of recognition, as the question is a very valid and insightful one, that belongs in all marriage ceremonies.

Judge Wooten then had each repeat the same vows, following by the exchange of rings.

Many phrases here are traditional, and well-chosen. And “life partner” is what marriage is all about.

There followed a huge outburst of applause. Note the beautiful phrasing. I like the use of “declare” in place of “pronounce”, and I’m thrilled with both “married” and “partners for life”. And even in male/female marriages, the phrase “kiss the bride” is outdated, and is well replaced by “seal your vows with a kiss” in all circumstances.

Beyond that, although no one never pays attention to the “by the powers vested in me . . .” phrase as a triviality to the ceremony, there was a feeling of pride in the reference “. . . by the State of New York” and its recent legislation.

This being a house wedding, the celebrating with food and drink that followed seemed like any holiday party in a large family. Both judges showed a flair for domesticity. To compliment the huge strawberry wedding cake, Former Judge Kennedy had baked a lime cheesecake. And when Judge Wooten, a tall, husky, balding man who absolutely looked the part of country judge, particularly when in his robes, was asked to stay for a while, he said he would, but also would have to hurry home, saying, since his wife works, “I have to cook tonight!”

Epilog   I hadn’t expected that this “travel” to dinner with Ed and Charles and the “travel” up the Hudson Valley to Audrey and Jane would be the subject of an essay, but it was a thought that developed suddenly the morning after the Catskill wedding, as a review of 21C sociological change. And happy as I am for both couples, from a writing point of view, it couldn't be more perfect: two friends were male, two friends were female; one was a double wedding, one was a single wedding; one was a private ceremony just for the participants, one was a wedding before many friends; one was a church wedding, one was a home wedding; one was a religious ceremony by a minister in his study, one was a civil ceremony by a local judge. Common to both stories were outbursts of applause. It just doesn't get much more symmetrical than that.