I want to preface this with a little note. I know there are some people on this site who can't legally get "married" to the one they love in NYS. In Buffalo Quaker Meeting there is a 70 year old woman who has spent half her life fighting for GLBT rights. And when NYS decides to turn the corner, I know Buffalo Quaker Meeting will be one of the first to recognize marriage for everyone who is in love, and I would be happy to be invited.
Part 2: The Ceremony.
We wanted to have the ceremony outside under this huge tree in the front yard, but we weren't sure if it would happen. The forecast was calling for 70% chance of rain. You can't control the weather, but I was just hoping for 2 rain-free hours to do the ceremony outside. The reception was going to be under a huge tent, so it didn't matter if it rained later in the day, but the ceremony would be so much nicer outside under the tree in the front of the house.
When we finished taking pictures at the lake it was windy, really cloudy, and it had rained on us a little. We went back to the house for the ceremony and we both expected the chairs to be safely under the tent. We arrived at the house, and the place looked totally different than how we left it. I'll never forget pulling into the driveway and seeing all these people, gathering in the country with their fancy clothes on, walking in a hundred different directions, moving out of the way of our car as we passed. And to our surprise all the chairs were confidently set up under the tree.
Getting Everything Ready
Our un-signed Wedding Certificate
There were people everywhere! We only had about 10-15 minutes before the ceremony started. I kind of led Molly through the jungle of people so we could go upstairs and get ready, "hi... good to see you, we gotta go hide upstairs..." We paused to give grandma a kiss on the cheek but that was it. I forgot to shave that morning, so I did that. Then I stuck my head out the door to check on the microphones. We waited on the steps, for things to start. Edgar gave everyone an overview of Quaker practice and what would happen during the ceremony. Then we walked out.
We sit in calm silence until we feel moved to say our vows. People might pray, or meditate, or just quiet down their minds to bring a spiritual calm into their hearts.
Quakers would call the silence during meeting, becoming centered, listening for the light within, or waiting for god. Quakers usually worship in silence, unless they are inwardly moved to speak. We waited about 10 minutes. This must have seemed like a long time to non-quakers, but I noticed many of them dreamily gazing at me and my bride, I think they understood. When we were both calm and ready, we said our vows. The sun was out.
First Kiss
Our Vows:
"In the presence of the spirit, our friends and our family, I take thee, to be my Wife. I promise with love, to be caring and compassionate, to be supportive and patient, to show understanding and empathy, to keep an open and honest heart, and to always nurture our shared unity as your Husband from this day forward."
We wrote our vows together, and remembered everything. After saying our vows, we exchanged Rings, and signed the Marriage Certificate.
Then we looked at each other and we both wanted a hug.
That's when everyone gets teary eyed. We sit back down again, and the marriage certificate is read aloud.
For the rest of the meeting we just wait silently for people to share messages from their hearts.
The dog was interested, but he was calm too.
Our View
Under the huge canopy of shade provided by the the ancient and sturdy Maple tree.
There is no minister leading the ceremony, anyone can speak if they are moved to do so. People just raise their hand for a microphone, and share what they wish. It's unscripted, and the messages are very personal, and very spiritual. We waited about 15 minutes in silence. The first message was a song called 'Simple Gifts', it was shared by someone from Buffalo Meeting. Below is a picture of all the people who shared.
As you can see, anyone can speak, weather they're 9 years old or 90. Many people shared stories about us, or they talked about love and marriage, how happy they were for us, and how good we are for each other. Something like this ... "listening to the leaves, and the birds, and feeling the warmth of the sun, it seems as if the heavens are celebrating with us." "May your love be as broad as the branches above you, and as deep as the roots below." "We love when they do First Day School, they're so nice and fun to be around." "The bride adopted us as her grandparents when she moved to Fredonia. She would arrive late at night to sleep at our house, we woke her up, fed her, and gave her a ride to Quaker Meeting on Sunday." "the groom and I have known each other since we were born, and we did all those important things together, like climbing trees or playing with legos." .... It was realy nice.
A few More Photos from during the messages.
Bride's Family
My Mom Sharing, she's so cute.
The Scene for our big Country Wedding.
After the Meeting Ends our families and wedding party sign the Marriage certificate. Everyone at the wedding also signs the certificate during the night. The entire ceremony was wonderful, things went so well, and we got to do it outside under the tree. We are very blessed. Afterward we said hi to some of the guests, and did family portraits.
Next time, the reception. Honeymoon stuff later too.
I'm glad I'm writing all this stuff down, it's nice to remember it now, and I want to keep all the details.
Enjoy
But they aren't drilling because they make more money when supply is tight. Force McCain to address that question, are you with the Oil Companies or with the American people? But instead Obama wimps out, drilling should be part of the energy formula blah blah... If the oil companies still have lands where they can get oil they don't need more, we can talk about that when they've used what they already have. Taking on the oil companies makes you a hero, thanks for blowing that one.
Josh The studies that I cited are compiled by Liberal outlets, but the data and the surveys is as objective as possible. This is public information, we used the same stuff in my political science classes, it's not like any of those "Fox news polls", I've seen some of those questions, very leading.
You are right that elections are much more accurate than polls at showing American preferences. But what about the people who don't vote, I have many friends who I cannot convince to go out and vote, they are straight up cynical about the whole system. I want the democrats, or somebody, to connect with that group. What are their issues?
I would suggest that national elections bear out the mood of the electorate over the years in the best fashion. Democrats have always been more effective locally than they have been nationally, and the opposite is the case for Republicans. You can imagine what I think about The Nation and Media Matters, David. Do you want me to start quoting polls from The Weekly Standard? =P
I don't think progressives can blame Republicans for their lack of effectiveness. Liberals have been bad at the political game for a long time - in 2004 I heard Lewis Black rip a 10-minute comedy piece on the subject for crying out loud. There is a kernal of truth to what you are saying, but what I'd suggest is that progressives have to do a better job of defining their positions. Just don't blame the electorate when they don't agree with you! Obama is watering it down now, which you've talked about. You are asking why - I am telling you that it is because he knows the aggressive progressive agenda you are talking about is not palatable to the American middle class that he needs to win. McCain is crushing him in the middle right now. The people aren't stupid - they know what Barack Obama stands for. Liberals for a long time have never given voters credit for thinking for themselves because, well, they lose all the time.
(e:drew) - there was nothing unconstitutional about that bill. In fact the federal version (The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002) was identical and passed with no complaint from the likes of NARAL, Ted Kennedy and other staunch pro-choice advocates. At the time Obama complained about the lack of a "neutrality clause" - when it was added he voted down the bill anyway. Incidentally it was the neutrality clause (it guaranteed that the new act wouldn't affect erosion of the right to an abortion) that guaranteed broad support. This is why it is so shocking - every pro-abortion Senator in Congress voted for a bill identical to that which Obama voted down.
When Obama ran for Senate he claimed that he voted it down because it lacked the neutrality clause. It was a lie - anyone can see in the record that the language was included in 2001 and he voted it down in three straight sessions going into 2003. You can see why it is a point of comedy for me when the Obammunists think this is a smear.
Anyway, since linking to partisan sources is now credible (only teasing, D) here is an article on the subject - :::link:::
Sorry to ramble so much, but let me get back to this, since I don't feel like like we can define how conservative or liberal America is anyway.
When you drift toward the center you end up with a confused platform, and you don't inspire people to work hard for your campaign. Your supporters start to wonder if you really support their issue or not. Democratic campaigns have failed time and again because of their focus on the center. The republican base is inspired to support their candidate, and they bring friends to the pols. The Democratic base is sitting at home thinking that no matter how they vote nothing will change. That is the biggest problem for democrats, supporters stay home, or if you're like me, you stick to your ideals and vote Green. Democrats need people like me, and my Father-in-law if they expect to win, ever.
right on, d
The vote was against an unnecessary, unconstitutional bill. Obama would have been wise to simply not vote, but you can hardly use this to say he was in favor of infanticide. He's against bad legislation.
I'd say the problem is that progressive values have been defined by the republicans running against them. They have been very good at creating stereotypes, coming up with catch phrases like "socialized medicine" and otherwise demonizing progressive issues. Progressives haven't had a clear platform for many years. It's not that Americans don't agree with progressives, they just don't know what we stand for. But Americans in general are progressive, I know I have to qualify that statement so.. Research/numbers :::link::: :::link::: of course it's in the liberal press but you can still read the poll questions and see numbers.
"No I don't want to give Bush my tax money, he will blow it on Halliburton." D that is ridiculous!
You are correct that Republicans have never had to bow to the center to win. That is because they don't have to - Democrats could never copy the strategy and expect to win. The reason is because conservative politics have been tried and tested, and win national elections regularly. Progressive politics do not. It could be argued that middle America relates to traditionalist values far more than they relate to "San Francisco" values. Actually, I'll go ahead and say that I'd wager that is true.
(e:drew) - do you really believe that the infanticide vote should be disregarded? They are talking about killing babies that survive abortion. He voted against a bill that would have stopped such a practice in Illinois.
:::link:::
Really. What about all of this is so misleading - did me make the vote or not? If anything is a red herring it is the neutrality clause! All of this looks fairly devastating.
That "infanticide" vote is a pure red herring.
Oh, I forgot one, "Tax = bad" "small government = good" The dominant logic is that the government is the problem. People forget that a competent and transparent government can actually solve problems, and spend our collective resources wisely. The New Deal programs are the only thing keeping Americans comfortable enough so we don't start rioting in the streets.
No I don't want to give Bush my tax money, he will blow it on Halliburton. But I think Americans would have gladly accepted a tax increase to pay for the war. Americans will give money to support worthy causes.
Republicans don't win elections by appeasing the center. Let's take 2004 Bush and Kerry. Did Bush wiggle at all on Gay Marriage, the War, Tax Cuts for big Business, Abortion, Healthcare? He didn't wiggle, he stuck to the issues of his supporters, and they worked hard for him. Josh you're exactly right on this, Obama does need to "convince middle America". But the term is "Convince them", not appease them, cause then you look like you either don't have faith in your own ideas, or you just don't know what the hell you're doing. Remember, Kerry was the flip-flopper.
You can convince middle America that you have the best answer, but you don't do it by suddenly watering down your idea and meeting your opponent halfway. Sure you have to do that in the Senate, but in a campaign you need to defend your own agenda, and make your opponent justify why they oppose your good ideas.
I'd say, the Republicans have gotten this far by motivating their core supporters based on hot button wedge issues. Not by drifting to the center. That's why the pundit declared "center" has moved so far toward republican dogma.
"tax cuts for big business creates jobs" "military muscle is the only way to defend ourselves" "the market will naturally take care of global warming" "Free market healthcare is the best in the world"
Sounds like the Right has done a better job of telling the center what to believe. In 2004 Democrats didn't even have a platform outside of abortion and gay marriage, Democrats need do get their populism back.
It is an interesting strategy but in my view it is a loser in a general election. In primaries progressives can win all day long doing that, particularly because of the financial clout that liberal organizations and the blogosphere now wield. I truly believe that the bigwigs fear DailyKos, which is why they work so hard to keep them happy. There is some shame in that, though - if you look at the comments left by many of the readers of the site some of these people are subhuman.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Obama will not win without winning the center, particularly this year and particularly because he is so far behind McCain in centrist core issues. Independents are going to choose the President this time around, but I don't think progressives should worry too much about what Obama is saying. Take a look at his voting record (allow me to snicker for a second - take a look at that infanticide legislation in ILL!) and you'll see that progressives have nothing to worry about. National Journal rated him the most liberal senator. He is not a centrist, but he has to convince independent voters that he's trustworthy. He's losing that battle at the moment.
oops. I guess I am with DCoffee, not ajay.
I'm with ajay in that a politician doesn't necessarily have to move to the center if he/she can register/get out the many people who don't vote.
This is a difficult and unconventional strategy, but it is the one that won Obama the primary. I wish he had chosen to stick with it in the general election.
I totally agree with you.
(e:dcoffee) , from what I've heard, there's a hardcore block of (who else but) Republican congressmen who are pro-drilling. They will not accept any clean-energy initiative unless there's more drilling.
So the choices are: throw them a bone and get them to go along, or do nothing.
Obama is willing to throw them a bone if they'll agree to some massive investment in clean energy.
Of course, the real blame lies with the fucking retards who continue to vote these assholes into office based on the "ooohh... the terrrurists are gonna git us!" argument.
Vote on policies and ideas, people. Not on the label "Republican" or "Democrat".
D -
Obama is moving to the center because he has to. He needs to convince middle America, not you! Swing voters will decide the election and I think the left, once again, has generally overestimated the popularity of progressive politics. I'd hang in there and not worry if I were you. We all know if he gets elected he'll throw middle America under the bus and pursue all the liberal policies that attracted you to him in the first place.
The zingers have been always been the case of late. None of what we've heard so far in the four years of campaigning (or so it seems) is going to figure into the election which is sad. You want more than sound bites.You want to believe in some hope, that there is some reason it won't be the same old, same old. Make you want to volunteer where the election will matter.
I have to say, i am disappointed with his post-primary performance. It is such a different game though. There is almost no discussion of policy and it seems like a contest of who can spin the best zinger. booo.