Bride’s magazine is the oldest and largest of the national wedding publications. Conde Nast cranked out the first issue in 1934; it now has a circulation of 402,897. After seventy years of assisting brides, the magazine crossed a threshold of its own. In its September-October issue Bride’s included an article that probes evolving fashions in same-sex ceremonies. Written by David Toussaint, the article cautions readers “not to panic” if they are invited to a monosex wedding.
Millie Martini Bratten, the magazine’s editor-in-chief and editorial director of Conde Nast’s Bridal Group told the New York Times (7/28/03), “We were hearing from various retailers that same-sex couples had become an important part of their gift registries. And we were answering more readers’ questions: ‘If two women are getting married, what’s the appropriate attire?’” Ms. Bratten also observed that the New York Times had begun publishing notices of same-sex ceremonies.
Indeed, they had. In September 2002, the Times printed the first of many homosexual bonding-ceremony announcements in its Sunday Wedding/Celebrations section because Daniel Gross and Steven Goldstein were bursting to share their happy news with the world. These announcements and the article about Bride’s magazine were part of the newspaper’s relentless promotion of gay marriage. A single issue of the Times may include several articles promoting gay marriage.
When the Times asked Cathy Renna, the news director for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation about the Bride’s article, she responded that every such article was important to promoting the gay social agenda: “Maybe a cynical person would say they just want our business. But if you want to have a wedding, these are the publications you’ll read. A story like this really energizes the gay and lesbian community.” So Bride’s magazine is happy to energize the gay and lesbian community by making a grotesque parody of Christian marriage.
The New York Times went on to say that “Editors at more than one national bridal magazine said that they also were considering articles on same-sex weddings, but added that “business concerns remained a factor.” Business concerns? What a coy little expression. What they meant was, they were wary of jolting their readers with images of lesbian brides posing next to their butch lovers dressed in tuxedos. With bobbed hair and steely eyes, these dames are definitely not grooms, but they are definitely not brides either. They are something unfamiliar, something alien.
In the Bride’s articles itself, David Toussaint tells us that “gay men and women are out, loud, and proud about making a commitment.” He interviewed the gay men whose wedding announcement was the first one published in the New York Times. “The time was right,” said Mr. Gross, whose wedding to Mr. Goldstein was an elaborate affair with ceremonies in both Montreal and Vermont. “We felt a wedding would demonstrate that our relationship is every bit as valid as anyone else’s.” The elaborate press coverage also demonstrated that the editorial staffs of the New York Times and
Asked about the reaction to his article, Toussaint told the Times: “Anyone involved, they all called me back immediately and were thrilled. One gay couple, two men I interviewed, said they would buy every issue of Bride’s on the newsstand. I think that’s hysterical. It’s every brides dream to be in Bride’s.”
On December 19, 2003, the New York Times published an article titled “Mining the Gold in Gay Nuptials” that was meant to get the tourism and catering industries salivating. The panting prose tells us of Gloucester Square Inns in Toronto which offers three-day gay wedding packages and has organized dozens of same-sex ceremonies: “In Winnepeg, Manitoba, Pride Bride has helped plan 300 weddings – providing everything from a same-sex cowboy wedding cake topper to rainbow-striped vests for the bridegrooms…,” which is nonsense, since every homosexual union exterminates the position of bridegroom: either there is no bride or there is no groom. The Westin Resort in Whistler, Canada, offers a Honeymoon in the Mountains package that includes champagne and chocolate-covered strawberries for amorous homosexuals.
The Times assures us that “The popularity of the gay wedding business has not been lost on the Massachusetts tourist industry. Travel experts say the state’s gay-related tourism business could receive a huge lift in the wake of the state Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling on November 18th, which stated that the state had 180 days to rewrite Massachusetts marriage laws to include same-sex couples.” We are told that bed-and-breakfasts in Provincetown have already begun to advertise wedding packages for homosexuals in anticipation of a change in the law.” “I think it could be the biggest boom ever imaginable,” gushed Lynette Molnar, the owner of the Fairbanks Inn, which offers a “Saturday Night Fever” extravaganza for disco lovin’ gays. “Businesses are aware of the potential impact,” said Rob Tosner, the head of the Provincetown Business Guild, which holds seminars about the marriage market. “We want to have all our ducks in a row,” said Tosner. And then there’s Olivia, a self-described “life-style company that connects, transforms and celebrates the lives of lesbians,” which offers a cruise that features performances by lesbian singer K.D.Lang.
The New York Times says that gay tourism could save the Canadian travel market “hit hard this year by the SARS scare.” “Indeed, spending on same-sex marriage travel could add as much as $1 billion to the slumping Canadian travel industry over the next three years…,” which is a sly attempt by the editorial staff of the New York Times and their ringmaster, Arthur Sulzberger, to convince all Canadians that their only hope of avoiding financial ruin is to fling their inherited moral values into the gutter and embrace all things homosexual. The Times quotes Margot Booth, a spokeswoman for the Tourism Industry Association of Canada: “Gay tourism is a very well-heeled market, and it’s growing. There is a lot of money to be made there.” That’s true. Studies have revealed two things: (1.) Sixty percent of gays earn fat salaries in white-collar positions and (2.) Canadian religious observance is at an all-time low. This means that Canadians are the natural compliant handmaidens of the entire homosexual social agenda.
The chance to make a fat dollar would appear to be the point of this Times article, but that is not the purpose of publishing the article. The purpose of this text is to further the mainstreaming of homosexual behaviors and the homosexual world view. Any fool can see that the gay social agenda will advance more quickly if it is promoted by capitalists looking to make a buck. We have seen a similar promotion of the feminist agenda.
In the first decades of the Twentieth Century the tobacco companies sought to increase their sales of cigarettes to women. An industrial psychologist was hired to find out what cigarettes symbolized to the Fair Sex. After studying the matter, the sage told the tobacco men that to the modern woman cigarettes were “torches of freedom” that symbolized their independence. This led to successful advertising campaigns that hooked countless women on tobacco.
In the 1970s, as a new wave of feminism struggled for acceptance, these old tobacco campaigns were dusted off, revamped, and aimed squarely at America’s clueless young female poseurs. Women responded instantly; they couldn’t suck up enough tobacco. The best remembered of these campaigns was the Virginia Slims “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby” series that juxtaposed color images of stylish, fat-free, fashion models with black-and-white snaps of frumpish women toiling over laundry tubs.
It was the genius of Madison Avenue ad men that made feminism stylish. Feminism had a terrible image problem until the ad men saved feminism and made it appear fashionable and sassy. In its heyday, Ms. Magazine, the house organ of American feminism, was supported almost entirely by alcohol and tobacco advertising. Gloria Steinem’s decision to spurn cosmetics advertisements and favor booze and tobacco promotions, probably killed more American women than any other decision on the Twentieth Century. Steinem understood that until feminism became stylish it had no hope of becoming a mainstream American phenomenon.
The lesson of feminist posturing has not been lost on gays seeking to mainstream the homosexual sub-culture. If the New York Times can create “buzz” in the tourist industry over a potentially lucrative gay marriage trade, then that industry and related industries might create advertising campaigns of their own that will create the illusion that monosexual marriages are normal or, perhaps, avant-garde, or a stylish step ahead of those plodding conventional heteros whom the gay boys dismiss as “the breeders.” In any case, there is nothing neutral about the New York Times article ballyhooing gay spending potential; it is a calculated effort to coax moneyed interests to bankroll the homosexual agenda.
According to James McCourt, the author of Queer Street, a history of gay culture from 1947 to 1985, the greatest change for gays is their journey from being hopelessly outside the margins of society to being marketed to and marketed by the relentless forces of market capitalism. The old gay culture has been swallowed up by pop culture. Said McCourt, “Everyone was in the street [after 1985], evidently queer, after Stonewall. The [gay] culture changed into something else, something more marketable.”
Yup, being gay ain’t what it used to be. Or maybe gayness just seems to be different. Is there a new gay, or are they just the same gays with snappier publicity? The old expressive decadence is kept out of sight. Flip on the TV and the gays are all cute and sanitary. On TV, gays have been elevated to the status of Ginsu knives: they are sharp; they are marketable; they are a market niche, a definable target audience.
According to gay writer P.G. Kain, “Thanks to the recent media blitz, there are now gay cruises, gay restaurants, gay vodkas, gay hotels and probably gay toenail clippers. There was a time when being ‘a friend of Dorothy’s’ meant something special. You were different. Now it means that you’re part of a commercial demographic.”
This brings us to the 2004 Same Sex Wedding Expo at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in Manhattan where gay and lesbian couples strolled amid acres of red tulle and heart-shaped balloons. The New York Times introduces us to Chris and Eric who “walked arm-in-arm among the booths, pausing to examine expensive Champagne vacation packages for gay couples, and tables set up by lawyers offering services and advice on domestic partnership agreements and adoption…They examined special wedding cake decorations adapted for gay couples…figurines of two grooms. Or two brides.” “They’re so cute!” Chris exclaimed. He and Eric, we are told want a state-sanctioned wedding, complete with “a church ceremony, a towering cake, a limousine, lots of candles and ‘fabulous satin’.”
Smack in the middle of the third annual Same Sex Wedding Expo was Renee Rotkopf ready to sign up anyone who was in the mood for a unification ceremony conducted by an “interfaith minister,” whatever that is. The ceremony would include “a certificate and a flower bouquet, but no marriage license or legal benefits.” “It’s symbolic,” said Rotkopf.
According to the Times, “Organizers and exhibitors say gays and lesbians make up a market that generally spends a lot.” That’s no surprise. Gays, as a group, are doing very well. Sixty percent of gays enjoy executive employment. They are overwhelmingly childless and therefore have little stake in the future. They are free to live for the moment, to indulge their latest infatuation. It is extremely unusual for any gay male relationship to last more than two years. The Times quoted Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Expo organizer Sharmayne Wesler as saying, “Companies are tapping into the gay community. There is a lot of potential for their bottom line. Plus, it’s a fun community.” She meant companies such as MetLife that was busy hustling plans for domestic partner benefits. MetLife was competing with nearby Go Softwear that specializes in vinyl thongs for guys who want to attract other guys.
It wouldn’t have been a gay expo without a booth promoting gay nudism. The Mount Sinai School of Medicine dispensed free condoms and Milky Way chocolate bars. A drag queen in a skimpy silk kimono, stockings and gold stiletto heels drew attention to the booth for Lucky Cheng’s restaurant where all the waiters dress in drag.
All in all, the Same Sex Expo was a mocking send up of heterosexual marriage. Said the Times: “An ordained interfaith minister who called himself Reverend Glenn of Trees offered to perform commitment ceremonies for $450.” “It’s as married as somebody could legally be at this time,” said the interfaith minister, who whipped out a crucifix from which he extracted a wand that he used to blow soap bubbles. “I’m a very irreverent reverend,” said the “interfaith minister.”
Clownish clergy are a dime a dozen in the “gay community”; they are drawn to “gay marriage” with all the seriousness that gay marriage deserves. When Cambridge, Massachusetts displayed an eagerness to be the first city to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals and opened City Hall at midnight, there was a gaggle of ministers on hand distributing promotional brochures, complete with phone numbers and sliding price scales for ceremonies: private, public and out of town. These clergypersons evinced no interest whatsoever in getting to know their customers, or to find out if they liked one another, or if they understood the import of a life-long commitment. The party atmosphere surrounding gay marriage draws hucksters and the results are quickie, no-questions-asked, weddings.
Any jerk can go online and apply to become a minister of the Universal Life Church, based in Modesto, California. This ordination mill has been cranking out ordinations by mail since 1959. Now they do it by e-mail. Within a mere 24 hours anyone can be ordained so long as he (she) agrees to uphold the church’s only teaching: “Do only that which is right.” After that, the applicant is empowered to perform marriages in America. So much for Bible college.
Because our Constitution prevents the government from defining what constitutes a fitful ordination, you don’t have to attend seminary, or even be able to read, as a prerequisite for ordination. Therefore, any fool can become a clergyperson and officiate at a wedding. That’s why lots of ski instructors and wilderness guides are also Universal Life Church ministers: it’s a thrill to marry folks who get the urge to merge in some exotic locale. The rock star Alanis Morissette became a ULC minister so she could hitch her friends. The “interfaith ministers” who congest the wedding pages of the New York Times are usually ordained-by-mail ministers of the Universal Life Church. These mock ministers are perfectly suited to perform mockery gay marriages.
Writing for the New York Daily News, Lenore Skenazy describes another year’s Same Sex Wedding Expo: “You know a movement is finally gaining acceptance when mainstream marketers start to cash in on it. And that’s exactly what was happening at the crowded Same Sex Wedding Expo last week at the Roxy ballroom in Manhattan.” She went on about the vendors who “were only too happy to register same-sex couples.” “I really want our names on a piece of paper together,” gushed lesbian Camile Jones, who was at the expo with the object of her affection, Chante King. To which the Daily News reporter enthused: “When Bloomingdale’s is registering same-sex couples for the kind of fancy china and fish forks that no one, no matter what her sexual orientation, ever ends up using, there’s hope.”
Hope? Ms. Skenazy has put the cart before the horse: the gay “movement” is gaining ground because commercial interests are promoting the queer-folk social agenda in an effort to squeeze a dollar from it. If bestiality were legalized, these same vendors would be the first in line with offerings of fine-china doggie dishes, satin gowns for schnauzers and crotchless panties for sheep. In return for increased sales and advertising revenues from gay publications, the wedding-racket hucksters will promote gay marriage just as cynically as the booze and tobacco boys promoted feminism. People with splinter-group sexual appetites have been embraced by conscience-optional business interests in a promotional campaign that is undermining the most vital and sacred of American social institutions, marriage.
More Good Stuff on the Homepage, Click Here!
Thomas Clough
How Big Tobacco and Big Booze Promoted Feminism
Gays Imitate the Feminists
Copyright 2004
June 30, 2004