February 5
...serving up your daily dish.
Ok, let's have a show of hands. How many people start their Sundays by reading the New York Times nuptials aloud to their spouse and mocking everything they find? We thought so. Well, now you can play the same game online. Enter two new players: Rafe and Susan Gomez of Montclair, whose website Wedding Announcement Review turns the sport into a forum. And you just have to imagine their glee this weekend with the Vows column documenting the wedding of Beth Greenberg and Beth Simon. In fact, you don't have to imagine it at all. It's right here.
Who wears the pants?
A forum member in Princeton chimes in with this.
Some women marry men.
Some women marry women.
These women married... themselves.
GREENBERG:
First name - Beth
Age: early 50s
Passions - sheepdogs, blue jeans, the Beatles and sleeping late.
Residence - NYC brownstone (same block as Simon)
Family relationships - close to octogenarian, widowed mother.
View of love (prior to meeting Simon): pessimisticSIMON:
First name - Beth
Age: early 50s
Passions - sheepdogs, blue jeans, the Beatles and sleeping late.
Residence - NYC brownstone (same block as Simon)
Family relationships - close to octogenarian, widowed mother.
View of love (prior to meeting Greenberg): pessimistic
Of course the reigning site of nuptials mockery is Veiled Conceit, whose takes on the Sunday Vows column (usually delivered a few weeks later) we think are actually spit-out-your-coffee funny. Example here.
It's amazing how little provocation it takes to make you loathe a stranger:
Ms. Giebel and Mr. Walter had met earlier that year, when they were working on a television pilot for Comedy Central. She arrived on the job with low expectations. Ms. Giebel, who graduated from Harvard and had just completed her master's degree in cinema studies at New York University, was more interested in Brittany, France, than Britney Spears. She was "a little concerned that my fellow workers would be steeped in pop culture," she admitted.
What a colossal bitch.
It's (Sunday) morning in America. Let the mocking commence!
Is it me, or does virtually every gay couple shown on the Times vows page pretty much like exactly each other? There have been scores of guys in the past year who look amazing like brothers. Same hair, same nose, same eyes, same ears, same glasses, etc., etc.
1. Am I imaging this?
2. Do gay people read these pages and say the same thing about straight people?
Posted by: montclair_is_crazy | Feb 5, 2006 12:04:24 PM
A couple lives near me that don't look alike. But Mick and Bianca leap to mind among heteros, which struck me as extreme narcissism.
And nuptials have turned commercial: Take a look at the back page of the nuptials in the Star Ledger, it's a GM ad pretending to be nuptials. I suspect the ad executive in the lower right hand corner may have something to do with it. My wife never read the ad, but read the nuptials. When I pointed out that it was an ad she then raised a question about the truthiness of the nuptials. Were the couples paid participants? Unwitting participants? Or phony marriages?
Posted by: buycopy | Feb 5, 2006 12:58:33 PM
Another look-alike couple (recently divorced):
Eddie Van Halen and Valerie Bertinelli
Posted by: Skipwith | Feb 5, 2006 1:15:15 PM
Essex County expected to pass Domestic Partner benefits
Benefits proposed for domestic partners
County employees would get pension, health coverage
Thursday, February 02, 2006
In a surprise policy directive during his annual State of the County address last night, Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo Jr. proposed extending pension and health benefits to the domestic partners of county employees.
The proposal, which has to be approved by the nine-member freeholder board, would make Essex the ninth New Jersey county to extend some degree of benefits to domestic partners.
Posted by: anonymous | Feb 5, 2006 2:46:10 PM
Nah...too easy. The idea of 50-ish women with the same name, dressed in wedding gows and gazing soulfully into each other's eyes...
Posted by: Joy | Feb 5, 2006 5:10:40 PM
In a surprise policy directive during his annual State of the County address last night, Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo Jr. proposed extending pension and health benefits to the domestic partners of county employees.
--------------
I'd be happier if Joe D suggested disbanding the county altogether, but this seems like a very reasonable accomodation to employees with civilly recognized unions.
Posted by: Paul from OB | Feb 5, 2006 9:11:08 PM
When I read the styles article this morning, I was actually touched. (I must be missing the requisite Baristaville cynic gene.) People are very lucky to find happiness. Hopefully, the two Beths will have a lifetime of it.
Posted by: Jessica | Feb 5, 2006 9:58:36 PM
Why does the Times do this? They are a national newspaper, the most credible one we have, but are constantly criticized for having an extreme liberal bent.
This only corroborates that notion. They know very well this will not sit well with a good part of the middle portion of this country, but they stick it to them anyhow.
Posted by: Stan | Feb 6, 2006 1:15:04 AM
I agree that domestic partners should be afforded that same rights as married heterosexual partners. A step in the right direction for Essex County!
From what I understand, the engagement/wedding stories are submitted to the NYT by someone involved with the event and are chosen by their supposed level of interest. Perhaps that editor is also a cynic but if you don't have anything nice to say......
Posted by: anotherpointof view | Feb 6, 2006 5:52:01 AM
Stan,
"They are a national newspaper, the most credible one we have,..."...are you living in a cave?...don't you remember Jason, Judy and Punch? Over the last 3 years their credibility has been constantly called into question. I'm not even talking about their political bent.
Posted by: The Iceman (8T) | Feb 6, 2006 6:37:41 AM
TWO SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE EVENTS before the New Jersey Supreme Court hears the marriage equality case on Wednesday, February 15th. Before we tell you more about the all-important, night-before-the-Supreme Court rally on Tuesday night, February 14th in Montclair, here's a reminder...
On Thursday, February 2, 2006 at 7 pm, the Unitarian Church of Cherry Hill, 401 Kings Highway North, Garden State Equality presents the final South Jersey town meeting before the Supreme Court hears the case. THIS EVENT IS A MUST-ATTEND IF YOU LIVE ANYWHERE NEAR OR IN SOUTH JERSEY. This includes Mercer County going southward through the Philadelphia suburbs, i.e. Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and Salem, or through the South Jersey Shore, a further trip but we need you all. A high number of the state's elected power brokers - those who hold your fate or that of someone you love in their hands - have always been from South Jersey. Never has that been more true than today. It is unequivocal: The domestic partnership law would not have been possible without the huge crowds at South Jersey town meetings in 2003 and 2004 that impressed these leaders to no end. Those two town meetings were the turning point in our grassroots movement, period. This equally important town meeting will spotlight South Jersey Champions of Equality, saluting some of the great civil rights activists of our time, all from South Jersey. You'll hear some amazing speakers. If you live anywhere near or in South Jersey, this is your last and very best chance to send a personal message to the New Jersey Supreme Court before it hears the case. A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Then on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 7 pm, the night before the New Jersey Supreme Court hears the marriage equality case, at Bnai Keshet Reconstructionist Synagogue, 99 South Fullerton Avenue, Montclair, Garden State Equality presents our community's GREATEST, MOST EXCITING RALLY EVER, WITH AN INCREDIBLE ASSEMBLAGE OF NATIONAL LGBTI LEADERS WHO HAVE NEVER BEFORE APPEARED IN NEW JERSEY TOGETHER. We'll announce the line-up shortly. Joining these national leaders will be great figures from New Jersey LGBTI legal history, including James Dale, who won the Boy Scouts anti-gay discrimination case in the New Jersey Supreme Court; and Jon and Michael Galluccio, the pioneers who won the right for same-sex couples to jointly adopt children.
REQUEST FOR SPEAKERS: For this night-before rally, Garden State Equality seeks at least one registered domestic-partnered couple from each of New Jersey's 21 counties to speak - or from as many of the 21 counties as possible. If you and your partner would like to speak, please e-mail me at [email protected] The message: We may be partnered, but the current law is miniscule. We deserve equality and we want to get married.
Friends, this rally on Tuesday, February 14th is the most important event, hands down, in our community's history. Headlines from this rally will be in the next day's papers, on the very morning the New Jersey Supreme Court hears the case. And yes, it's Valentine's night and on site we'll have fabulous desserts for you to celebrate.
A final word. Who played a crucial role in winning death benefits for Lt. Laurel Hester? YOU DID. You, receiving this e-mail, who went on forward the e-mails, just like this, that you get from us. There was no way we Garden State Equality could have mobilized the support of thousands throughout the state on Lt. Hester's behalf without your forwarding these e-mails. We'd meet folks at our Lt. Hester events whom we'd never seen at other events -- and we'd ask them how they heard about these events now. "I got an e-mail from someone who forwarded it to someone else who forwarded it to me."
So when we conclude all our e-mails with a plea for you to forward the e-mail to others, we're truly begging you to do so. Sure, you may receive a response here or there that "I already know about this, I was already e-mailed on this" but so what. You'll also be reaching others who had no idea.
As always, even if you're receiving this e-mail second or third hand, won't you please forward this e-mail to your friends, family, work colleagues, members of your organization and/or congregation; to all list servs of which you are a member; and to all blogs you read or write? Please take a few minutes to do so now. That's the best way we can ensure a massive turnout for these two final events before the New Jersey Supreme Court hears the marriage equality case.
With every good wish,
Steven Goldstein
Chair, Garden State Equality
www.GardenStateEquality.org
Cell (917) 449-8918
Posted by: Franklin | Feb 6, 2006 7:45:30 AM
Dear Stan,
Gay people are getting married or having commitment ceremonies all over this country. That the New York Times is now treating such events as "normal"is a GOOD thing. Eventually it will seep into the culture and everyone will regard it as "normal."
I'm sure we're all looking forward to that day. Right, Stan?
Posted by: latebloomer | Feb 6, 2006 8:15:39 AM
Late very accurately states the NY Times' goal in the matter. The decision of what social and political policies should "seep" into the culture drives much of the NY Times' editorial decision making.
(I happen to favor Gay Marriage, BTW, just not by court fiat)
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Feb 6, 2006 8:46:56 AM
ROC said "just not by court fiat"
By what then? If it's not recognized by the state then rights that married people have are lost.
I think it should be legal!
Posted by: badd_patti | Feb 6, 2006 8:58:35 AM
Exactly-- If it's not legally recognized by the state and the courts, what the hell good is it?
Posted by: latebloomer | Feb 6, 2006 9:05:53 AM
"By what then?"
State Legislature.
Late's language is correct "recognize" and "enforce" are what the courts are to do, not "create".
I think it should be legal too, badd. Let's make a law! I'd support it.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Feb 6, 2006 9:09:09 AM
"The decision ..social and political ...drives much of the NY Times editorial decision making"
That's a true statement across the board for just about ALL periodicals/journals/dailies - not just the NYT.
Posted by: man in the street | Feb 6, 2006 9:30:37 AM
I've always gotten a big kick out of the NY Times overage of weddings. It always smacked of such pretension. The couples were always so well-pedigreed and well-accomplished. They always had middle names like Tinsley, Farnsworth, and Huffington. Their parents are also comparably accomplished. They never mention the parents who are bilge pump operators or convicted pedophiles.
Now with gay weddings being the latest boom, the Times has kept its politically correct stance by showing these unions quite prominently. The Beth and Beth wedding was funny, matching gowns and all. They are registered at Home Depot and The Pink Pussycat Boutique. Please be discreet.
Posted by: DS | Feb 6, 2006 10:30:35 AM
"(I happen to favor Gay Marriage, BTW, just not by court fiat)"
Still bitter about Brown v. Board too?
Posted by: Butch | Feb 6, 2006 11:08:51 AM
Suggesting racism and hompphobia is the beginning, middle and end of political discussion for Butch. If she can successfully brand you a racist or homophobe, then there is no need to have the discussion at all.
It is her constant tactic.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Feb 6, 2006 11:28:41 AM
I always said, gay people have as much right as anyone else to be miserable.
But seriously. Gay people are U.S. citizens, right? They vote, they pay taxes, many of them raise children, et cetera and so forth, so why not afford them the right to marry should they choose?
Posted by: Miss Martta (8T) | Feb 6, 2006 11:37:28 AM
