Pass Me a Bucket

30Sep06

This is the logical consequence of equal rights and acceptance. It’s a bittersweet victory.

Full-size Wedding Essentials cover

Okay, first thing: I get it. Really, I do. I get what they’re trying to say, even though that’s not what they’re saying. I also get that wedding publications are, by definition, lame at best and appallingly tasteless the rest of the time. I get it, seriously.

But if you’re gay-married and haven’t adopted, is your gay-marriage really less than gay-complete? Which gay-marrieds (or gay-marrieds-to-be) actually want to read “the sappiest proposals ever recorded”? (Recorded?!?) Which gay-marrieds-to-be don’t know “the real purpose of all those utensils”? Tell me, please. Because I want to be as far away from all of those gay-marrieds as possible. Forever.



9 Responses to “Pass Me a Bucket”

  1. 1 amysue

    Love the blog and just delurking to ask:

    WTF? Here in good old Massachusetts, where same sex marriage has neither strengthened nor weakened my not same sex marriage (r vice versa I hope) we’ve yet to see this version of a wedding mag but I’m sure one will pop up soon. Is the concept of marriage and childless by choice not compatable? For that matter, our neighbors who campaigned strongly (and still do) against gay marriage keep tellingus that they are not bigots, but that marriage is for one man and one woman for the purpose of breeding. Ooops. We don’t breed. Clearly we’re in violation of something there. Ah well, we do have kids (via adoption) but procreation is beyond us. As for the other shit, does any adult need to be told what to do with utensils before marriage?

    Anyway, love the blog. Love Canada. Have resigned ourselves to staying the course here in the states in the vain hope they can be fixed.

  2. 2 bstewart23

    First, thanks for the kind words.

    Second, “approving” same-sex marriage was, indeed, a confirmation that lesbians and gays can choose to have their relationship recognized as equal to that of their nonhomosexual brethren and sistern (who choose to be legally linked).

    During the whole equal-marriage debate, lesbigay contrarians arugued — here and, no doubt, in MASS — that the push for same-sex unions was merely buying into the banal, heterosexual (and heterosexist) prison of conformity. Of course, it wasn’t. It was all about choice.

    And “choice” includes the decision to not reproduce and not adopt, for myriad personal (and political) reasons. I support and raise my glass to all those nonheterosexual marrieds who adopt or procreate in semiconventional ways, but that’s a choice, too, not an inevitability.

    Lastly, full disclosure: Canadians are loathe to admit this, but while we may love our country and may find it superior in many ways to life south of the 49th Parallel, “superior” is certainly a relative term. I’m inclined to compare death by drowning and death by electrocution. One is better than the other, no?

    Politically and socially, yes, the climate in Canada is “better” than that in America. But it’s important to note: the Conservative leadership in this country makes no secret of its desire to mimic the conservative leadership in the U.S.. Brian Mulroney was a third-rate Reagan, and every bit as damaging to the economic and social fabric here.

    Stephen Harper is a Bush-wannabe — though one wonders how any politician might be so dunderheaded as to desire that — and his party has not just threatened but promised to reopen the same-sex marriage issue this month (October).

    Stay tuned.

  3. 3 John A

    I’m perplexed by their decisions to write this blurb on their main page…

    “The content is devoted to actual gay and lesbian weddings solemnized in Ontario, and offers advice on planning a beautiful formal wedding and a happy life together. (This publication contains no nudity or sexual content.)”

    …as if gays are going to this magazine to find PORN, when we can find it in better places and not have to pay for the emotional damage this magazine might cause….

    …but then on their front cover is a HAIRY SHIRTLESS MAN holding a child, right next to HIS ASSUMED SIGNIFICANT OTHER’S CROTCH.

    Since I’m way too tired to read into this, I will just scratch my head and furrow my brow.

  4. 4 bstewart23

    So I wasn’t the only one who did a WTF on the cover?

    There’s an argument to be made, I suppose, that any unseemly reading of the shirtless-man-holding-a-baby-right-next-to-his-partner’s-crotch is totally unintentional and that the beholder needs to get their eye and brain examined. But here’s the deal: if you get paid for writing, it’s your responsibility to foresee any negative reading of the words you’ve chosen. And if you’re a professional designer — appalling as the design of Wedding Essentials is — then you must foresee every possible reading of your visuals.

    Which, of course, simply reveals that the folks behind Wedding Essentials FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES are unprofessional, craven, opportunistic, amateur, money-grubbing hacks. Any other explanation for that cover treads on some very sketchy ground.

  5. 5 John A

    well, when you put up a disclaimer saying ‘hey, this magazine is not a sexual outlet’ and then go and put an unnecessary shirtless dude on your cover…i get slightly confused about their motives.

    and ok, maybe i was stretching with the crotch shot. i’m just blinded by the amount of headsmacking this rag brings on.

  6. 6 bstewart23

    Well, if the ineptitude (and ugliness) of the print edition doesn’t reveal the true motive behind the publication, a quick visit to the website (linked above) will prove that they’re certainly not investing any of their income in web design or testing.

    I’m just thankful that the crotch in question is encased in 501s and not pleated Dockers. The tucking-in-of-the-tee-shirt thing was entirely predictable, though.

  7. 7 Diane

    I look at the picture and think, “Hey Paul Bellini is on the cover of a magazine.”

  8. 8 bstewart23

    Hee. Paul Bellini’s Baby Care Magazine is one I’d subscribe to, lickety-split.

  9. 9 t.

    “Stephen Harper is a Bush-wannabe — though one wonders how any politician might be so dunderheaded as to desire that — and his party has not just threatened but promised to reopen the same-sex marriage issue this month (October).”

    Thanks for reminding me why I hate that motherfucking douchebag again. Time and a summer without Question Period had started to dull my rage. Has his party yet figured out how “re-opening the debate” is even legally possible without going to the courts, and they’ve so contradictorilly (word?) said they’ll do?

    Hate.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: