trisha - 06/26/08 09:20
whoo hoo! congrats and happy marriage!

mrmike - 06/24/08 22:36
Congrats

drew - 06/24/08 21:50
Because I know your politics (a little bit), I think you will appreciate the statement "Jesus is Lord," more if you learn more of the context.

It was originally a political protest. Caesar reserved the terms, "Lord," "Savior," and "Son of God" for himself. Proclaiming Jesus as any of these was a rejection of empire.

Of course, in today's American church, it is not often understood that way. But it was crystal clear in the first century.

janelle - 06/24/08 21:18
Congratulations! Thanks for the interesting explanation on a Quaker wedding.

paul - 06/24/08 20:13
Congratulations, you guys look so cute together.

dcoffee - 06/24/08 20:13
Thanks Everyone :) If I had a cell phone I just might live blog from the wedding :)

Here's a bit more about Quaker Weddings, for anyone who's interested.
Quakers generally do not forbid or mandate any type of ceremony or ritual, so all that is expected in a quaker wedding is that the couple say their vows, sign a marriage certificate, then someone reads the marriage certificate aloud, and worship continues with a normal one-hour semi-silent meeting for worship. It is common, but not required, to exchange rings. Prior to the wedding the couple meets with a marriage Clearness Committee, and is given consent to be married under the care of their Quaker meeting. Then there is a marriage oversight committee to oversee and help facilitate and plan the meeting for marriage.

What makes a quaker wedding different from other traditions.. The Bride is not given away by her Father. The wedding couple walks in to meeting together. There is no person who marries the couple (ie priest), they marry each other. There is no podium for designated speakers. There are frequent periods of silent reflection, meditation, or prayer, and any guest can speak out of the silence. Everyone attending becomes part of the marriage by signing the wedding certificate.

How we're doing it.. We wrote our own vows and marriage certificate, based on the practices of New York Friends Meeting. We had a calligrapher design a marriage certificate for us, it will hang on our wall after the wedding. We will walk into meeting together, after our families and wedding party are seated. There are many non-Quakers in attendance, so we will have an opening and closing speaker from our oversight committee to help get everyone on the same page. We sit in a spiritual silence until we are ready to say our vows. Then we exchange rings, sign the marriage certificate, and the certificate is read aloud. Meeting continues, and any guest can speak out of the silence and share their reflections on marriage love, or the bride and groom. Often family members share something. After meeting everyone signs the marriage certificate. mmtornow is wearing a wedding gown, and I'm wearing a suit.

Why not do it the normal way? Quakers are a Christian religion, but the focus is on personal growth and spiritual seeking, and personal inspiration, rather than reliance on a book or person for divine leading. I have been to many Catholic/Cristian weddings as a photographer, some are very moving and spiritual. Others, I'd say the majority, are routine exercises, and the emphasis on ritual is distracting. I hear the same readings over and over, and they've lost their impact. I like the one about how "love is not jealous or boastful.. it rejoices in the truth" The one I dislike is the one about how (paraphrasing) "Adam named all the beasts that god created but did not find a suitable companion, so god made him fall asleep and took his rib, encased it in flesh and called it woman, for it was taken from man." I've heard it interpreted in the homily, but I still think it's quaint, strange, and of course, gender biased. I also never understood why god has to be a man, and I never agreed with calling Jesus "Lord". I have read the first 3 books of the bible, and intend to read more. I also find power in group singing, like they do in church.

This is too long... I guess it's because I have been a spiritual person all my life, so I have thought about it. Mmtornow is lucky, she's been a Quaker since birth, after we met I started to learn about Quakers, and the more I learned the more I liked about them.

tinypliny - 06/24/08 19:53
Congratulations!!!!

PS: Is (e:mmtornow) wearing the awesome duct-tape dress? That would be so cool. :)

metalpeter - 06/24/08 18:54
So I take it by fun you mean you are having "The Real Wedding Crashers" crash the wedding, kidding that would be kinda cool though. Congratulations, and hope the weather is nice.

leetee - 06/24/08 18:27
congratulations. i hope your wedding is everything you both wish it to be, and that your life together continues to be happy. looking forward to the photos.

jenks - 06/24/08 18:19
congratulations! I hope you'll share pictures!

drew - 06/24/08 17:54
Congrats!

I thought Quakers just made vows during a regular meeting.

Care to provide some of the detail about what makes a Quaker ceremony special?

jason - 06/24/08 17:46
That's so great, man, I'm happy for you two. Have a great time. Nice picture of you in the entry as well. You could have smiled!!! (This is when I would say, I *am* smiling).

metalpeter - 06/18/08 20:06
Great pictures how did I miss the co-op out in the street those two pictures are awesome.

joshua - 06/18/08 12:10
Ha - I thought I spotted your ladyfriend out there last weekend, but I wasn't entirely sure of course, having never really met you guys. =D I found a lot of things I wouldn't mind having... if I had a proper way of displaying any of it. For me a lot of the pottery looks the same, but I found a few things that I thought were really beautiful. What I really wanted was a cool looking object to use as an ashtray, but I didn't find anything I liked.

fellyconnelly - 06/18/08 07:18
i'm so sorry i missed this last weekend! awesome pics though, thanks!

dcoffee - 06/13/08 19:29
Just a historical note, the Supreme Court wasn't hasty about their decision. Congress was hasty when they passed this law just days before a campaign season break in 2006. Republicans thought it would be a pawn in their reelection, and they left out habeas corpus on purpose. Even though that's the main problem with the Supreme Court. We could have fixed it then, instead of using constitutional policy as a public stunt to grab a couple votes. Something has to change, you can't just disappear people and detain them indefinitely.

"we should have a framework through which we can ethically deal with these people that won't potentially endanger Americans." exactly.

As for Europe, we would be better off relying less on interrogation and more on our allies. You said it yourself Josh, terrorists and captured foreign soldiers will lie, better information comes from cooperation. And we would be safer with more respect, more appreciation, and hell, more affection from countries around the world. Part of the reason we want that moral high ground is pure self interest. It's not all touchy feely :)

metalpeter - 06/13/08 17:23
Just wanted to add that those 4 that voted are not crazy but are kinda foolish. They think that in times of war or maybe even not in times of war it is ok to give up our freedoms to try and catch "The Bad Guys". But see what they don't understand is that "The Bad Guys" is a point of perspective. They don't get that once that protection is gone someone can come after them. They view it as oh we are going to get them. But they don't get they can be thought of them also. The thing that makes this country so great is that we have our freedoms and rights, but once we start to give those away we might as well move to Nazi Gemeny or Even China or someplace like that.

joshua - 06/13/08 11:32
The reason why I would only talk about this stuff seriously with you and you alone (out of the anti-war crowd, anyway) is that you always have a knack for coaxing something thoughtful out of me after I rant. =P

We do agree on the central principle that we can't be holding these people forever without some sort of resolution on their status. My problem, as seems to be always the case with the left, is how it's actually come to be.

With respect to interrogation - these people are trained to lie, as we've found out conclusively via capture of their own training manuals. To a degree I see the anti-war left as being hoodwinked as a result of this deceit. It offends me that the anti-war left holds these sort of people at Gitmo, who by the way aren't there because they were smoking a cigarette at the wrong corner at the wrong time, in higher regard than the soldiers at Haditha, almost ALL whom have been found innocent of any wrongdoing. The anti-war left sold those boys down the river and have never apologized to them. I'll never respect the anti-war left as long as they behave that way, and thats the honest truth.

The Supreme Court made a catastrophic error in the spirit of idealism. Enforcement of the law and "saving the constitution" is in the eye of the beholder. The only sure result is that in our haste to do the right thing we'll have released extraordinarily dangerous people for silly garbage like procedural errors.

I agree that we are a nation of laws and that we have to follow them. That does mean, by the way, the ones we don't agree with as well. You are right in saying that Gitmo, for good or bad, has resulted in us losing the moral high ground. To be honest though, to a degree I really don't fucking care what Europe thinks of us. They don't have to like us, but they certainly should respect us. Prez Bush and his administration has lost that respect for our country, but hardly the way to earn it back is to grant constitutional rights to terrorists and treat them with more respect in the public mind than we do our own soldiers.

As far as I'm concerned, equality under the law does not apply to enemy combatants and/or those who provide material support to known terrorists; however, we should have a framework through which we can ethically deal with these people that won't potentially endanger Americans. I know its a rhetorical question you are asking, but the answer should be obvious.

jason - 06/12/08 21:24
As always, I appreciate that you're a stand up guy. Next time I'm unfair to Ginsberg you're free to give me shit for it, hahaha. Seriously though, check it out, and even if you disagree it at least gives an insight into how these people come to their conclusions. I'm a nerd, I think it's pretty cool.

The thing about FDR that I respect is that he was very up front about his intentions, as compared to Bush's shadiness and secrecy. He's one of your faves, and do you have a copy of his inaugural address where he talks about it? He is a pretty persuasive guy, although I do sympathize with people when they talk about the danger of too much concentration of power in one of the branches.

I think in his day, there would be no Gitmo, he would just have them executed. One result of this decision (my own opinion here) is that when military people have to make these split second decisions, they will favor killing them on the battlefield instead of running the risk of them being let go. They won't make it to Gitmo. A possible consequence is the mistaken killing of innocents. I don't think there are nil consequences of this decision no matter which way it goes.

It is a terribly difficult choice to make, taking the high road and making the sacrifices to prove your dedication. In the end I have to agree that we have to set a good example, we have to be a leader whether we want to be or not.

dcoffee - 06/12/08 20:20
Jason, to be honest, I haven't read Scalia's opinion. It's easy to pick on him, and that's not really fair. And you're right about FDR, and he is one of my favorite presidents. But I'm not sure why we need to create a new legal system just for this, we have military courts, and civilian courts. if we would have put them right into the military legal system we could have avoided some of this.

dcoffee - 06/12/08 19:57
Yea I guess the above entry was a bit sarcastic, can't really do stand-up with just text.

dcoffee - 06/12/08 19:31
Actually Josh i thought you'd agree with me on this one. Should the government have limits to it's power? Should they be able to put people in prison and not have a trial? Should we just interrogate them until we are satisfied, then what, leave them in jail, or send them home mentally disabled?

There are ways to get information on potential security threats, one is through interrogationof captives, but you often get bad information, they tell you whatever you want to hear. For Bush that's ok, "do they have WMD?" "Yea, tons of it.." That's fine if you don't care about the validity of the information, and you are just looking for excuses instead of facts.

The other option is cooperating with different nations and other inelegance agencies, and broadening your allies. The way you do that is by agreeing on laws and sticking to them. By setting a good example that people can respect. By being open, and forthright about out intentions. We have lost the moral high-ground partly because of our indefinite detentions at Guantanamo.

Maybe all that stuff about equality under the law, innocent until proven guilty, equal opportunity, upward mobility, maybe that was all lip service, but if so, what the fuck are we protecting? What the hell makes us so special that we are worth fighting and dieing for.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Who's radical here? Me or Antonin Scalia?

PS. the supreme court didn't decide how long you can keep someone without charge because there was no limit in the law passed by congress. Is the supreme court supposed to make up a number, or should it come from congress? Also Foreign soldiers have rights under our legal system. Does that harm our security? I think it shows that we are fair, and our enemies are the ones at fault.

jason - 06/12/08 18:57
David, you should do yourself a favor and read the majority opinion, as well as Scalia's dissent. I have it in front of me here and it's fascinating reading. You may well find yourself trusting the blogosphere far less.

Why do I request this? Because I don't think you're at all being fair to Scalia or the dissenting justices. They're not dangerous, they're not fanatics, and they are not crazy. They are legal minds, no more, no less. The Constitution wasn't "saved" and neither was HC. No matter what Justice Ginsberg tells you, Justices aren't put in place to fight for the "right" result.

A cursory reading of the first few pages of Scalia's dissent reveals that he isn't fearmongering, or telling lies, or looking into a crystal ball. He cites real-world circumstances that have already played out, and only a world-class fool could believe that these real-world circumstances are going to go away.

It isn't what he said that bothers people, but that he was so devastatingly correct in what he was saying.

And it isn't even defensible that one group of people values the Constitution or detainees more than any other group. FDR - expanded the SC, interred Americans, and expanded presidential powers far more than Bush ever did, and what do liberals call him? The greatest President ever.

People wish to manipulate the Constitution in ways that serve their political needs. Nobody is exempt, and you can't be any more honest than that. Whatever the legal reasoning, I agree that we can't just hold onto these people forever with no trial, but the price will indeed be high for someone, probably not you or me who are here at home instead of the sandbox.

Thank God that the decision upholds the appropriate nature of Military Tribunals in these cases. I would have shit a solid brick had they decided otherwise. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them.

drew - 06/12/08 18:52
Anybody charged--and the slightest bit of evidence is enough in a terrorism case--can be held for trial, eliminating the possibility of "terrorists being released to the battlefield."

joshua - 06/12/08 18:20
(e:d) - you are a well-intentioned guy and are generally reasonable so I'll reserve most of the vitriol. With all due respect, a lot of this entry was naive and overemotional.

What has happened today is that the liberals on the Supreme Court have extended Constitutional rights to coughallegedcough terrorists. Liberals have never, nor will they ever, understand national security issues and how the Constitution should be applied in cases like this. You want more erosion of our ability to defend ourselves? Vote for Barack Obama. The rest of America (non-liberals) should be deeply concerned.

The Constitution has always been malleable - that is exactly how Roe vs. Wade got through. I find it interesting that you think selective interpretation of the Constitution is appropriate as long as you are doing the selecting and the interpretation. You mention conservative judges and activism, which any student of history knows is a ludicrous thought. Judicial activism implies that something was actually forced through against the grain, or intentionally overlooked despite the law. Judges are allowed to have opinions in dissent... don't you know that? I also find it interesting that you are suggesting hypocrisy on the issue when your brethren have NEVER been able to admit to it, even with Roe vs. Wade in place. In fact, its usually ignored. As usual - liberals are white as snow and everyone else is evil. Don't believe me? Feast on liberal talk radio.

This sort of well-intentioned naivety is dangerous to America, and if you enjoy it by all means support Barack Obama. This is an idea he'd love, and the thought of a liberal being the Commander in Chief of the United States in this context should alarm any American concerned with national security issues... PRECISELY because of this garbage. The court was wrong. What *should* have happened was the immediate establishment of limitations on how long we can hold these detainees without trial. Instead, we have liberal insanity that will undoubtedly allow terrorists to go back in the battlefield. Frightening.

I suspect when Barack Obama gives his opinion on this, during the first debate he will be eviscerated for it.

mrmike - 06/12/08 15:55
Skeery bidness

paul - 06/06/08 23:24
I totally feel where you are coming from but I agree with (e:drew) 100%, I just feel like I was brainwashed looking back on it.

dcoffee - 06/06/08 22:02
Yea, good point, it wasn't till college that i learned about all the other foreign interventions, Guatemala, Iran, Chile, many times overthrowing democracies. But still much of mu generation believes that America should be better than that. I'll go with claiming next time though :-)

drew - 06/06/08 18:54
When were we like that ideal? Sadly, we've been "might makes right" from the beginning, even as we have said "liberty and justice for all" from the beginning.

America didn't change. Not that much, anyway. It's just that when we were young, we believed our country's propaganda.

I think its time to live up to our ideals, but I think it might be a "claiming" rather than a "re-claiming."